Skip to main content

Full text of "Hearing"

See other formats


SAN FRANCISCO PUBUC UBRARY 



223 03273 6689 






San Francisco Public Library 

Government Information Center 
Snn Francisco Public Llfjrary 
100 Larkin Street. 5th Floor 
San Francisco. CA 94102 

REFERENCE BOOK 

Not to be taken from the Library 



#tt*7 



^HEARING 

^ SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF^CALIFORNIA 




^, -> 



130*^' IMPNTS DF-PT. 

JWAR 1 7 1998 

SAN FRANC icioO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1998 
1:35 P.M. 



345-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1998 
1:35 P.M. 



Reported by 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



3 1223 03273 6689 



Ill 

INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor * s Appointees : 

CLARENCE A. TERHUNE, Director 

California Department of Corrections 1 

Statements by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Resolved Issues 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Complaints Need to Reach Top 

Management 1 



Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Most Serious Problems and Plans for 

Addressing Them 2 

Treatment of People Program 3 

Implementation of Classes in Ethics and 

Sexual Harrassment 5 

Incentives to Employees for Advanced 

Education 6 

Next Three Institutions for Focus 7 

Willingness to Give Committee Update 

on Employee Programs in Six Months 7 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Resolution of Issues Raised by 

LT. BARNES 8 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Types of Parole Revocations 10 

Status of Lawsuits between Department 

and Cities 10 

Dental Care for Women Inmates 10 

Contract Situation regarding Packages 

to Inmates 10 



4 49383 SFPL: ECONO JRS 
75 SFPL 06/06/03 19 



IV 

Motion to Confirm 11 

Committee Action 11 

ANTHONY M. VITTI, Member 

Trustees of the California State University 12 

Motion to Confirm 12 

Committee Action 12 

WILLIAM J. KEESE, Member 

State Energy Resources Conservation and 

Development Commission 13 

Background and Experience 13 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Progress of Electrical Deregulation 13 

Role of Commission 13 

Shipment of Spent Nuclear Fuel 

Rods through California 14 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Dramatic Drop in Gasoline Prices 15 

Motion to Confirm 17 

Committee Action 17 

MANUEL E. ORTEGA, Member 

Board of Prison Terms 17 

Background and Experience 18 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Technical Violations vs. Crimes 18 

Variations in Revocations 19 

Reasons for Disparity 20 

Battered Woman Syndrome 22 

Preparation of Prisoners for Parole 24 



Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Large Percentage of Parole Revocations 26 

Parolees Who Have Absconded 26 

Suggestions to Improve Situation 27 

Motion to Confirm 28 

Committee Action 28 

VINCENT C. PALMER, Member 

Youthful Offender Parole Board 28 

Background and Experience 29 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Priorities Needed to Parole Wards 29 

Coordination with Youth Authority 30 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Early Release of Wards to Hold Down 

Population 32 

Motion to Confirm 3 3 

Committee Action 34 

Termination of Proceedings 34 

Certificate of Reporter 35 



P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— ooOoo — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Governor's appointees for vote 
only, unless there's some questions of Members of the 
Committee. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Mr. Terhune, please. 

Now, it's my understanding that there was a 
meeting on the issues raised by Lieutenant Barnes with 
Mr. Terhune, that some issues were resolved. Some things, such 
as firing a warden, were not agreed upon. 

That now that the court settlement's over, 
there's going to be an investigation; that there's commitment 
from you that there's no reprisals? 

MR. TERHUNE: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I would say, and then I'll 
yield to Members if they have questions, is the concern that 
came through to me is, some how, this thing got out of hand. 
And that happened maybe because it's the policy of the 
Department, or maybe it just happened. But a subordinate got 
word of the problem and was meeting, and it never got up the 
line for somebody with what I would consider authority to deal 
with it. Then here we were last week, talking about stuff that 
should have been resolved. 

Is that standard operating procedure, that nobody 
on top ever hears about something? This seemed to be a little 
bit, the complaints were more than some minor thing that I think 
an associate warden could deal with. Whether there was validity 



to them is another matter. 

MR, TERHUNE: Procedure will be in place. 
Something of that nature will certainly be brought to my 
attention. 

Now, staff may still continue to have dialogue, 
but I'll be constantly posted on what transpires. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I think that you or somebody in 
authority should be made aware, there should be a paper trail so 
that if something happens, you come in, you can't say, I didn't 
know, if you did. Or if you didn't know, it's because somebody 
screwed up. 

MR. TERHUNE: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I had occasion to meet with 
Mr. Terhune earlier this morning, and there were several issues 
that I discussed with him. I'd like to briefly go over them 
with him so I can have his responses as part of the record. 

First of all, we all know that there's some very 
serious staff problems at our prisons. I'd like for you to tell 
me, in order of priority, what you think the most serious 
problems are in our prisons and how you plan on addressing them? 

MR. TERHUNE: First of all, as we discussed, the 
biggest problem, and I had indicated this to the Committee last 
time, that the degree of crowding in the prisons is reaching the 
point that's become very volatile. 

That'll be addressed by the Legislature this 
year, and there'll be considerable dialogue on that. 

The next issue that concerns me is the amount of 



unscheduled activities, lack of program for inmates. About 
20,000 have no program. Again, we'll be talking about that as 
time goes on. 

Standardization of the use of lethal force and 
less than lethal force is an issue that I want to have very 
concretely standardized throughout the Department. 

The next issue, I think, that's probably of 
significance to me, and one we'll probably talk about some more 
is, making sure that from top to bottom in the organization, 
there is a concept of treating people with dignity and respect. 
That doesn't mean not holding them accountable for their acts, 
but making sure that there is a system whereby if somebody is 
not following policy, or acting outside of policy, that there be 
timely, thorough investigations. We're working that. Again, 
we'll be talking during the legislative process about that. 

We are in the process of setting up a good system 
for dealing with internal affairs, to make sure that those 
people who are not guilty of an offense are cleared very clearly 
and promptly. Those that need to be held accountable will be 
held accountable. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I understand that your 
predecessor had a Treatment of People Program, and as we 
discussed it early on, you had indicated that there were these 
documents that represented this program. 

But I was interested in seeing that we had some 
implementation. Could you briefly describe what the Treatment 
of People Program is? 

MR. TERHUNE: The Treatment of People Program is 



one that was started, I guess, about four years ago. It was a 
concept of basically making sure all the way through the 
management system that people are treated with dignity and 
respect, and that there was proper signage all through the 
institutions. I think if you go out and visit, you'll see those 
visiting halls and conference rooms. Entrance into the 
institutions, you'll see the signage that goes with that 
particular program. 

Coupled with that, and the one that's probably 
getting the most activity right now, is the ethics component. 
To me, this is directed primarily at helping break the so-called 
code of silence, and to open up communications between various 
members of the staff within the prisons. That's being done. 
It's being implemented in the academy and supervisory training. 
It's being done in terms of all our lesson plans to build in the 
concept of ethics, and responsible and ethical treatment of 
others . 

Also related to our conversation this morning, I 
still — based on my past experience, you can have a lot of 
paper. You need it out there. You need policies. You need 
procedures. You need training plans, lesson plans, all these 
things. 

But nothing is more important than the top 
management, whether it be the warden, the Director, the Deputy 
Directors, out and about in the prisons, and demonstrating 
through their own actions how people should be treating other 
people. 

Frankly, I commit myself to this group that my 



past experience has been that I'm out and about, and go to the 
prisons, and spend time there, talking with both inmates and 
staff. And that I expect my managers to do that. And that, to 
me, is where you bring about the change, when you demonstrate to 
people that this is what you believe in. Here's what your 
values are, and you put your priorities were your time is. 

SENATOR HUGHES: This is an agency that we have 
had more complaints about racism and sexual harassment and 
ethics, perhaps, than any other agency in government. But also 
it's to be noted that they are the largest, and so consequently, 
we would expect them to have largest number of complaints. 

I indicated to you earlier today that we have 
ethics classes and sexual harassment classes for Legislators. 

Do you have any such plans for the 
implementation for anything like that of your prison staff? 

MR. TERHUNE: Based our conversation, I'll 
probably be over next week to borrow your lesson plans. I 
frankly was surprised at — 

SENATOR HUGHES: Don't borrow our problems. 
[Laughter.] 

MR. TERHUNE: No, we have enough problems without 
borrowing yours. 

But I would like to borrow and take a look at the 
program. Frankly, you should be applauded for what you're 
doing. You're ahead of us on that, you really are. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you offer any incentives for 
employees to take college courses? Do you plan any incentives 
in the future for courses of things in Internal Affairs, or 



whathave you? 

MR. TERHUNE: One of the big incentives is that 
when you recognize line staff for when they further their 
education, get college credits/ and you make that a part of the 
examining process, this is one form of recognition, one form of 
demonstrating that achievement in this area is important. 

We have this year, and I do have my finger prints 
to some extent on this particular option, we are paying 
incentive pay now for line officers as part of the contract that 
further their education. This was worked out cooperatively with 
our biggest union, California Correctional Peace Officers 
Association. 

We tried to model and modify work schedules to 
the extent possible so that people can go to school on their off 
hours, and we are exploring right now the possibility of video 
networking college courses into our institutions so staff can be 
furthering their education right at the institution. 

Got a long ways to go on that, but the technology 
is there, and I think we should be able to pull that off in the 
next year. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Are you openly committing to do 
something specifically in this area in the not too distant 
future? 

MR. TERHUNE: Yes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you very much. 

Last but not least, would you please name the 
three institutions that is your area of focus at this time, 
where you plan on making personal visits to see that situations 



there are improved? 

MR. TERHUNE: I think I mentioned at the last 
hearing, I made my first visits to Pelican Bay and to Corcoran. 
I'm pleased with what I saw there. 

My concern now has moved a bit to Sacramento — 
State Prison Sacramento, probably Salinas Valley, and High 
Desert State Prison. Those are the three that I think need some 
attention. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Would you be willing to give the 
Members of this Committee an update in about six months about 
employees programs that you have instituted during your 
administration, and what the progress is? 

MR. TERHUNE: Yes, I would. You've got a 
guarantee. I'll come back in. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you. 

MR. TERHUNE: If you'll have me. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Chairman, we had some 
questions for Mr. Terhune last week, and then we have a request 
by the lieutenant who was involved there opposing your 
confirmation. 

First of all, let me say that I visit prisons up 
and down the state now, San Quentin, the New Folsom, as Chairman 
of the Select Committee on Prison Management. And I find that, 
by and large, the Adult Authority is better handled than the 
Youth Authority. 

The Youth Authority is a big mess, as far as I'm. 
concerned. We're not going to correct it today, or tomorrow, or 



8 

the day after. It's been getting that way for many years. It's 
going to take time to correct it. We're not going to do it by 
acting today, or tomorrow, or the day after. Let me say that at 
the beginning. 

But the lieutenant, you resolved the issue with 
the lieutenant? You met with him during the week, I 
understand. 

MR. TERHUNE: I met with him. I would not dare 
suggest that it's resolved. 

I tried and made some commitments, some 
agreements. I didn't ask that there be any commitment that the 
matter was settled. 

SENATOR AYALA: He suggested or requested four 
issues, of which I would agree and some I wouldn't, if I were 
you. Number one, he suggests that we fire Warden Madding. 

MR. TERHUNE: I definitely said I would not, 
unless I was convinced — 

SENATOR AYALA: I don't think one individual 
should be able to force a warden out, not when the Mexican 
American Correctional Officers Association and the Black 
Correctional Association support your nomination. 

I think that you certainly should have hard look 
at that and make sure that that's corrected. But I'm not going 
to support him on firing at random who he wants to be fired. I 
don't think he should be allowed to do that. 

Number two, the settlement of the $10,500 
settlement has been resolved by removing the attorney's name 
from it. 



Then the attorney fees, I understand there's 
about one $100,000 of fees. How did you address that issue? 

MR. TERHUNE: On that issue, I indicated, you 
present your arguments, you take your best shot with the judge. 
We'll take our best shot, and the judge, who is very familiar 
with the case, once he rules, that's it, one flop. 

SENATOR AYALA: The courts have ruled in his 
favor. The courts have ruled. 

Are we pursuing that any further. 

MR. TERHUNE: No. 

SENATOR AYALA: That's settled. 

MR. TERHUNE: That's settled. That was settled 
before the hearing. 

SENATOR AYTUoA: Then the next one was a 45-day 
stress leave, requested compensation for stress. 

You know what I think about stress. That's a cop 
out in most cases, and I wouldn't support that at all, no way. 

Sure, there are legitimate stress cases, but 
everyone, when they get in trouble, they use stress as a 
problem. And I don't believe in that. So, unless the doctors 
or someone who is really an authority on the subject matter 
requests or allows that to happen, I wouldn't support giving 
anybody compensation for stress. 

Everybody's stressed. We're stressed here now. 
That's a cop out in most cases, and I don't support it. 

But the four issues have been resolved in your 
opinion, and you're not going to make him happy completely, but 
we want a commitment from you. I think you said you would 



10 

pursue that further to make sure that what he had concerns about 
are taken care of. 

MR. TERHUNE: Yes. 

There was only one other point. I indicated that 
I'd ordered the investigation prior to the hearing the other 
day, and that the investigators will be done by October — 
excuse me, February the 24th. 

SENATOR AYALA: You were investigating this case 
until it want to court. Then you dropped the investigation. 

MR. TERHUNE: Right. 

SENATOR AYALA: Now that the court has settled, 
you picked up the investigation again? 

MR. TERHUNE: Right. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Just a couple. These are 
questions, but I don't want you to answer them here. We'll get 
them, because we want them in writing, and they're some of the 
ones that we discussed last week. 

The one dealing with parole revocations, 
technical or what? What was the offense that got them back in 
jail? And what was the offense that they were originally in for 
before they went out? 

The status of the lawsuits with the Department 
and the cities. 

The dental care issue for women inmates. 

The thing about packages. How they're selected, 
what's the contract situation? What's the margin of profit? 

Then something even like, you know, the birthday 



11 

cake type issue, if possible. I'm sure they x-ray for bombs, so 
they could probably x-ray for something there. 

Then you delved also, and we have on the record, 
that you're going to make sure that when something happens that 
look like it could turn into an important beef, that you're 
going to know about it, or one of your assistants. And you 
would probably be better off, at least at the beginning, knowing 
about too many beefs than not enough. 

So, we'll have the staff prepare a written letter 
to you over my signature about the questions that you were going 
to look into, and given what you had to do last week, I doubt if 
you have the answer to that. 

So, moved by Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'll move the confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, sir. 

MR. TERHUNE: Thank you. 



12 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

Governor's appointees appearing today, William J. 
Keese. Come forward/ be sworn. 

I'm sorry. Also for vote only today, who didn't 
appear, Anthony Vitti, Trustee of CSU. He was here earlier. I 
believe that the people who had a problem with him worked it 
out. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Move. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Moved by Senator Lewis. Call 
the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Mr. Keese was appointed member 
of the Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, 
effective April 1, replacing Sally Rackow, an old constit of 
mine, who resigned. 

I think everyone here knows Bill. 

You want to make a brief statement, then if 
there's any questions. 



13 

MR. KEESE: Mr. Chairman, I would just say I was 
appointed to the public member post. I happen to be an 
attorney. We have an attorney ->n the Board. 

I happen to have some experience in the energy 
field, having worked in the geothermal area and the petroleum 
area, and spent 12 years running and working for the solar 
energy industry. 

This is my first stint at government service, and 
I'm pleased that the Governor chose to name me as Chairman after 
his appointment. 

Happy to answer any questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any viewpoint at 
all about how electrical dereg. is pursuing or going? 

MR. KEESE: Having had an hour-and-a-half meeting 
this morning in the Governor's office, and with the Public 
Utilities Commission, who we meet with now-a-days on a very 
friendly basis about every three weeks, it will start on 
March 31st. It will start on a day forward basis. 

There are now 13 parameters. That may slide 
somewhat in the event the testing does not prove out. 

Testing will start on March 1st, and we basically 
need a seven-day forward test without any total failures. 

The application to FIRC will take place by March 
15th, and that gives them the 15 days to approve the start on 
March 31st. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Your role's really just what, 
oversight and comment? 

MR. KEESE: We do not have a control. The Energy 



14 

Commission has never been a command and control. We've been a 
policy and planning body. 

We do have — we do power plant siting. In this 
area we have two major programs. We were given a pot of money 
by the Legislature, $540 million, to allocate to renewable 
energy sources to bring them into competitiveness by the year 
2002. 

And because the amount of the research and 
development being done by the utilities had declined from $150 
million three years ago, to $60 million last year, and looked 
like it would be zero this year, the legislation ordered the 
utilities to give us a pot of $62 million a year. And effective 
January 1st, we are allocating that $62 million to research and 
development in the electrical energy area. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have a viewpoint on the 
shipment of, shall we say, spent nuclear fuel rods through the 
state? 

MR. KEESE: We have an institutional position. 
And I would inform you that I live on the Feather River, in Gray 
Eagle, California, and listen to the trains go by my house. 

We had tried to convince the federal government 
very actively that this was not the most prudent decision that 
they were making, to bring the waste into Concord. The Governor 
has supported that strongly. We have had very strong bipartisan 
support from the entire Legislature and our Congressional 
delegation. 

But it was a Department of Energy decision that 
is not subject to approval, and they made it, and they decided 



15 

to move forward. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There's little, if anything, 
you can do about it except say, don't? 

MR. KEESE: We are making sure that all the 
preparations are in placQ to handle any emergency that might 
occur. 

CHAIRMTIN BURTON: All that your agency can do, or 
commission, is to respond to a problem? 

MR. KEESE: And make it as safe as it possibly 
can be. 

CHAIRMT^N BURTON: Can you make it safer, or can 
you just respond if something happens? 

MR. KEESE: Well, the casks they're shipping it 
in are quite — it would take practically a nuclear bomb to blow 
them open. 

But what the concern is, an accident that might 
happen as they are being shipped. And we have worked out with 
the federal government, for instance, they wanted to take it 
over the Donner Summit this month. And we suggested there just 
might be some snow there, and they might want to delay their 
activity a little. They decided to delay it until later in the 
spring, and they're going to use the Feather River route. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Other Members? Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I just have a short question. 
In the last ten. days, gasoline prices have 
dropped dramatically in my district to something like 99 cents a 
gallon. 

Why is that? Why do you think that's happening? 



16 

What controls that? 

MR. KEESE: As usual is true, the market controls 
this. And the very interesting market dynamic that is 
controlling it is, we happened to have a larger than usual 
supply of refined product in California and pretty much across 
the country. 

With the financial turmoil in the Southeast, the 
orders for petroleum in the Southeastern countries have declined 
dramatically, which leaves a glut of oil on the world market, 
and the world price of petroleum has come down. 

Those two factors have contributed to the decline 
in price. 

SENATOR AYALA: Can you explain why this is 
happening in Southern California but it hasn't hit us up north 
yet? 

MR. KEESE: I don't have the exact numbers. The 
prices have come down in the north. Ninety-nine cents is not a 
universal price in the south. It's a very nice price that 
people like to put up when they have the opportunity to do it 
and get some free advertising for going to 99 cents. The price 
is probably a nickel or seven cents higher in the south than in 
the north. 

SENATOR AYALA: I always knew they were ahead of 
Northern California, but not by that much. 

MR. KEESE: No, it's not that much. In general, 
the average price is not that much of a gap. 

SENATOR AYALA: Do you think it'll hold for a 
while. 



17 

MR. KEESE: I would venture to say that the north 
is usually penny or two higher than the south. That's about 
where it runs. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's more than a penny. 

What's the pleasure of the Committee? 

SENATOR BRULTE: Move. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any opposition? Any support? 

Moved by Senator Brulte. Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations, Bill. 

MR. KEESE: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Manuel Ortega, member of the 
Board of Prison Terms. Mr. Ortega, please. 

MR. ORTEGA: Yes, Senator. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Do you have an opening statement? 

MR. ORTEGA: Yes. I just want to thank everyone 
for allowing me to come before you. 

Just to give you a brief history of my career. 



18 

I'm a native Californian and spent 30 years in law enforcement. 
The first four years of that career was spent in the City of 
Garden Grove. Then I moved on to the City of Orange, where I 
served for 16 years. Eventually became the Police Chief in the 
City of Bell, which is in southeast Los Angeles County. I was 
Chief of Police there from 1988 to 1990, and then came back to 
the City of Placentia as their Police Chief in 1990, and retired 
from there in 1997. 

And I've been retired for about a year and have 
been married for 28 years, have two children. And have enjoyed 
this job that I've been doing for the last ten months 
immensely. 

I'm here to answer any questions Senator or any 
of the Senators may have regarding my confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Some of the questions that we 
had, again, it's the problems of over crowding in the prisons, 
so it's a question again, and we'll probably address this to the 
Board as well, but, you know, some of the technical violations 
versus the crimes. And we'll probably send you or send the 
Chair of the Commission a thing, but basically, what are the 
type of technical violation or violations, technical or a crime, 
and then what was the underlying crime that was person was in 
prison for, got released for, and then misses an appointment, 
goes dirty in a bottle, or whatever, and could be back at 
tremendous taxpayers' expense, although, basically, they, you 
know, could well not be a threat to public safety. 

So we'd be very interested in getting, you know, 
getting that information. 



19 

We'd also be interested in finding out whether or 
not the parole agents, when you have like really a high risk 
person who's floating around, you know, whether or not there's a 
warning bell. Like, they miss the first meeting with the 
officer or the agent, then, like, whether that was something 
unavoidable, whether it was screw-up, or whether the person's 
all of a sudden off on, as we used to say, a frolic of their 
own. 

And then, the reasons, if any, and I think this 
was raised by Senator Ayala before, last week with another 
member of the Board, there seems to be a discrepancy, or just a 
variation in certain areas where people gets violated maybe for 
nothing, and people get violated for something. That there's 
just a different variation, I think, in revocations. And I 
guess whether you had an idea why. I guess some people see 
something one way, and some the other. 

MR. ORTEGA: Yes, Senator. I think that that's 
— and I remember when Mr. Giaquinto was asked last week, I 
think he give basically the same answer, is that all of us are 
just a little bit different. What may tweak one individual may 
not necessarily be enough to stimulate another one to revoke. 

I think one of the things that is critical for 
the Committee to know simply is that before anyone is revoked, 
it has to go through review process with a deputy commissioner. 
That's not us, obviously. That's the deputy commissioners at 
work. 

So, I would think that it would be rare an 
instance when a person would be revoked on a simple one 



20 

violation. As you indicated, maybe has a urinalysis that comes 
back in a negative, it would be unlikely that the parole agent 
would be able to revoke that individual simply on that one case. 
He may recommend that. 

But again, it goes through a review process with 
one of our deputy commissioners, and that deputy commissioner 
then has it within his power or her power to either say, give me 
all the facts,. let me look at this report, and either say, all 
right, I'm going to go along with the revocation. Or, I don't 
think you have enough there to revoke; I think you should find 
some other alternative to putting the person back in prison. 

But again, I wish I could answer more succinctly. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I understand that. So 
basically, the agent can only recommend? 

MR. ORTEGA: That is correct. The agent will 
make the recommendation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How would that account for the 
disparity, if that's the right word, that certain areas seem to 
have a higher level of revocation if, really, they could all be 
decided by the same person. I mean, somehow, depending on the 
lottery of what the hearing was — 

MR. ORTEGA: Well, I think also. Senator, what 
one must understand is that we have many deputy commissioners. 
Each commissioner — again, the deputy commissioner will be a 
little bit different than the other. It's not always the same 
deputy commissioner that hear those — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are the deputy commissioners 
within locales, or are they all located centrally up here? 



21 

MR. ORTEGA: No, we have them in the different 
regions of the state. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, it could be as much the 
deputy commissioner as it was the parole agent. 

MR. ORTEGA: It could be a combination of both; 
that's correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Does the Board of Prison Terms 
do anything about, let's use the bad urinalysis, of directing 
people into, you know, drug treatment programs, twelve-step 
programs, or alternative punishment programs, as opposed to the 
high cost of pulling them back to prison? Do you use much 
imagination, or are you just kind of stuck with either let them 
go or pull them in? 

MR. ORTEGA: That's difficult for me to answer. 
Senator. I'll tell you why, because we really don't get 
involved in that end of it. 

Normally that decision is left, again, to the 
parole agents and to CDC to make that determination of any 
alternative programs that may be available for the prisoner. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: If the parole agent doesn't 
revoke but recommends, we can't have it both ways. Then it's 
that deputy commissioner who, under some kind of policy 
direction, you know, with some flexibility, I guess, from the 
Board, could say, again, taking a look at the underlying offense 
where something really violent is against somebody that got in 
bar brawl and hit somebody in the head with a beer bottle, which 
becomes a violent thing even though the person might not have 
been, like, the type that lays in wait for people, hits them on 



22 

the head and takes their money/ that to see if there are ways to 
use punishment options to get people in some kind of twelve-step 
or drug things. Because one, it would probably be better 
policy, and two, it would sure lessen the over crowded of the 
institutions. 

And I would think that that's one of the things 
that the Board ought to give some thought to, is within whatever 
authority you have, see if you could come up to encourage that 
when appropriate. You know, appropriate' s in the eye of the 
beholder, but I think if you send out that message where they 
look at the underlying offense, they look at the revocation 
offense, and you figure do we want to spend all this money 
bringing somebody back, or really could we do something else 
with stronger supervision. So, I would encourage that. 

Back to the women prisoners and the battered 
woman syndrome, is that taken into consideration much with these 
women? That, if they were tried today, they would probably get 
lesser penalties or conceivably even acquittals because at the 
time they did what they did, there was no defense or no 
consideration? 

MR. ORTEGA: I think so. I think I'd have to say 
yes to that. Senator. 

I know that recently we had a case of a young 
woman who was convicted of a second degree murder. And on her 
initial parole consideration, she was given a one-year denial. 
But on her first subsequent hearing, she was given a parole 
release date. 

One of the reasons why is that the commissioners 



2J 

that conducted that hearing looked at the battered woman 
syndrome, and that it was definitely in evidence at that 
particular time on that particular case. And using that as one 
of the reasons, they gave her a parole release date. 

That law, as you know, Senator, and I mean, as 
the other Senators, I'm sure, are well aware, has come into 
being just since 1991 or 1992. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yes, it's fairly recent. 

MR. ORTEGA: So, we're kind of feeling our way 
through with those cases. 

But I do believe, and I know that I, for one, as 
I'm conducting these hearings in the institutions where the 
women are housed, look at that as a side issue, and look at that 
as an important part of that issue. We have it within our power 
to then make recommendations that an investigation be done on 
that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is it a policy of the Board, 
that you know of, as opposed to your own policy, that they do 
with what's* basically not a handful, but it's not much more than 
two handful of women, to look at that issue in consideration of 
whatever? 

As I said as the last hearing, I don't know if 
you were here, but when we went down to visit the Frontera, 
there was only one person that even had any beef, and that was 
like once with some marijuana and once drunk. And the rest of 
them, like, not even parking tickets. 

Not that, you know, they took somebody's life, 
which is not a good thing, but, you know, it almost was akin to 



24 

somebody breaking into your house. 

One other thing, is there anything you could do, 
or is this basically in the Department, as to what you can do to 
prepare prisoners to be -- I guess for want of a better word — 
successful as parolees? I guess all you could do is really 
recommend programs, if you had it in your mind, to CDC? 

Do you see anything that, you say, if this person 
would have gotten, you know, this in prison, or before they got 
out, or they had, you know, two hours of pretty strong 
counseling before they made parole that they might have figured 
it out and kept away from bad company and realized they 
shouldn't drink. 

But really, are people trained, or informed, or 
had it drilled into them that like when they go on parole, it's 
kind of a narrow thing? They could find if they do something, 
not even bad but stupid, they could find themselves right back 
where they were? 

MR. ORTEGA: Again, I must address myself to 
primarily the life hearings. Each lifer that comes up in most 
cases has accomplished several things before he even gets 
considered for a date. Normally they have received an 
education. They have acquired a vocation, and I have seen 
inmates that have come out with vocational certificates in 
dental technicians, as x-ray technicians, with job offers, bona 
fide job offers that will pay them very well, that would never 
ever require them to recidivate. But that's with the lifers. 

With the determinate sentencing inmates, many 
times — and again, this is my opinion. Senator — but what I 



think happens is, an inmate realizes that he has two to three 
years to do on a sentence, and knows that there's nothing we can 
do to him if he chooses not to program. 

And then again, because there are so many of 
them, maybe we don't have enough programs to get them into. 
Maybe some of them want to do some of the things, get into a 
twelve-step program, as you indicated, or get into some type of 
self-help therapy in the area of domestic violence. The 
programs sometimes just aren't available to them. So, they're 
released without that training. 

But again, going back to the lifers, those 
inmates that we hear on a daily basis, they have tremendous 
opportunity to do those programs. Many of them do those and 
come out. Our recidivism rate for a lifer inmate is probably in 
the area of ten percent. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I have heard that the lowest 
recidivism rate, unless you're getting gang bangers, is among 
the murderers. 

MR. ORTEGA: That's correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Because it's usually somebody 
they know, or a freak thing, again, as opposed to gang bangers 
or professional killers. I mean, you know, they killed their 
husband, they killed their wife, they killed their wife's 
boyfriend, their husband's girlfriend, somebody. And they, I 
mean, they don't do that any more. They don't go out and commit 
petty theft. 

Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Ortega, correct me if I'm 



26 

wrong, but I understand that we have the largest percentage of 
parole revocations than any or state in the country? 

MR. ORTEGA: That's my understanding. Senator; 
that's correct. 

SENATOR AYALA: And we have around 18,000 
parolees that have flown the coop. They don't know where they 
are. 

MR. ORTEGA: Absconded. 

SENATOR AYALA: Absent without leave. 

It appears to me that we must be doing something 
wrong. We should be able to improve on that. 

Why do you think this is happening? 

MR. ORTEGA: Again, Senator, I have to go back to 
what I talked to the Chairman about, and those are some of the 
programs. And they're not programmed well when they are 
released in order to make it into society. And they go back to 
the things that they did that got them the things that they 
wanted before they went into prison. And that could be in the 
area of theft, in the area of use of narcotics, in the area of 
robberies or burglaries. 

SENATOR AYALA: Does that explain why we have the 
largest percentage of returnees than any other state in the 
country? 

MR. ORTEGA: It's difficult for me to understand 
-- to answer that question. Senator. I'm not too sure if I know 
the correct answer for it. I think we can look at a number of 
different things. 

Again, I go back and say that maybe it's entirely 



27 

possible that the inmate/ when he is released, has not 
programmed sufficiently and prepared himself mentally to be able 
to go out and make it on his own. 

SENATOR AYALA: Do you have any ways that you 
think we might improve the situation? It is not a good one when 
you've got 18,000 people out in the state, or where ever they 
are, convicted murderers and rapists, and we don't even know 
where they are. They're on parole, but they're gone. It's kind 
of scary when you think about that. 

MR. ORTEGA: I think it is, and I think what is 
required is a concerted effort on the part of the Board of 
Prison Terms and Department of Corrections to develop some 
programs and some alternatives. 

I know that that is in the works. I have talked 
to our Chairman about that, and that there are some ideas that 
they're looking at, and I'm sure we discussed it. Senator. We 
talked about just one of those, and that was the issue of 
electronic monitoring. 

Right now, there is a program in progress between 
CDC and the Board of Prison Terms in trying to develop some 
protocol and a memorandum of understanding, if you will, on how 
we can use that, and a number of different things go hand in 
hand with that. 

But I think, and a long-winded answer to your 
question. Senator, it seems to me that there has to be a 
concerted effort on the part of CDC and the Board of Prison 
Terms to develop some of those alternatives. 

SENATOR AYALA: Is that in the works now? 



28 

MR. ORTEGA: Yes, I know that there have been 
several conversations. And as you well know. Senator, you were 
part of the Little Hoover Commission. There were a lot of good 
ideas that came as a result of that. I'm sure some of those 
will be considered. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any other questions? Anyone in 
support or opposition? 

Pleasure of the Committee? 

SENATOR LEWIS: Move confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

MR. ORTEGA: Thank you. Senator, thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Vincent Palmer, Youthful 
Offender Parole Board. 

Yes, sir. 

MR. PALMER: Mr. Chairman, just a few opening 



29 

remarks. 

My name is Vincent Palmer. I'm currently a' 
member of the Youthful Offender Parole Board. I'm in my second 
term. Originally appointed by Governor Wilson in 1993 and 
reappointed in 1997. 

Prior to my time on the Youthful Offender Parole 
Board/ I was employed by the California Youth Authority for 25 
years. I worked in the institutions and in field parole. 
Twelve years in the institutions, thirteen years in parole, and 
now five years on the Parole Board. 

So, I feel I bring a great deal of experience to 
this job. 

I am married and proud to say I just celebrated 
my 40th wedding anniversary this past weekend. Have three 
children and four grandchildren. 

I am at this point ready to answer any questions 
that you might have for me. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What do you look at when some 
kid comes, whether to keep a kid in or let him out? 

MR. PALMER: Well, as opposed to the Board of 
Prison Terms, every single Youth Authority ward is reviewed 
prior to parole, with the exception of those that max out by age 
either 21 or 25. So, we are looking at every single ward that 
is being considered for parole. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And what do you look for? 

MR. PALMER: We look at what their original 
commitment offense was, the crime that they committed, their 
understanding or their ability to describe why they did what 



30 

they did, what they've learned about that behavior/ and what 
they've done to correct it. That would include participation in 
the Victims Impact class that almost all wards -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Let me cut to this, and I 
probably should have asked the Board of Prison Terms, do you 
coordinate with or share findings with, and maybe this is 
something somebody ought to consider, but the work that's done 
inside the prison by CDC with inmates has an impact on what the 
Board of Prison Terms does, in some ways at least, how 
successful they may or may not be. 

I guess the same with you and the Youth 
Authority, and do you, like, ever coordinate or share your 
findings and say, you know, we're getting too many of these kids 
coming back, or there's a problem? Are you doing these things, 
like having a meaningful group thing with victims? Are you 
telling them the importance of education? Is somebody looking 
to see what they're going out to? Are they going out to a 
father that beats them up again, or no father, or no mother, no 
place to stay? 

It seems that all you guys kind of work, you do 
your own deal. You do the best you can, but you're sort of in a 
vacuum. There's no cohesion when it all really, in my mind, 
should try to go together. 

MR. PALMER: If I might. Senator, we get a great 
deal of information on the Youthful Offender Parole Board. 
Prior to any release on parole — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But do you kickback to them? 

MR. PALMER: Them being? 



31 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The Youth Authority. 

MR. PALMER: Yes, yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You can find all about this 
guy, but you've got a history or a record. You've got 
information about what happens to these kids when they get out, 
and do they make it or don't they. 

MR. PALMER: The Youthful Offender Parole Board 
meets every other month with the management staff of the Youth 
Authority and discusses. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And you say, like, you guys, 
you must be doing something wrong because these guys are coming 
out worse than when they went in? 

MR. PALMER: Right. For instance, a couple years 
— several years ago now — someone in the Youth Authority came 
up with the idea of actually conducting a class in a victim's 
issues, and having inmates go through that class. 

And as we began to talk to these inmates and see 
that -- what kinds of things that they were repeating back to 
us, we encouraged the Youth Authority to expand that program. 
Now I would say virtually 90 percent of the wards that go 
through the Youth Authority, if not more than that, go through a 
victim's class. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They realize they did something 
to another human being. 

MR. PALMER: Right. We bring victims in. The 
Youth Authority actually brings victims in and confronts the 
inmates and say look, this is what you did to me, this is what 
you did to my family. 



62 

We also encourage victims to appear at our 
hearings, our annual review hearings and our parole 
consideration hearings. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: All that'll do is guarantee the 
guy stays there. 

MR. PALMER: Not necessarily, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's been my experience. 

MR. PALMER: You see, it's different than the 
Board of Prison Terms because our young men have to be released 
either 21 or 25. And I think even victims understand, most 
victims understand that it would be better to have a short 
period of time at least on paroled supervision to transition 
back into the community. And although they really never fully 
get over what has happened to them, they do understand how the 
system works in most cases. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any other questions? 

SENATOR HUGHES: Question. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you. 

I'd just like to ask you, do you think that the 
Board should allow early release for selected wards in order to 
hold down the population? 

MR. PALMER: I'm not sure if you understand how 
the wards are committed to the Youth Authority. 

They have a sentence, and then they're given a 
parole consideration date that is generally much shorter than 
that sentence. 

SENATOR HUGHES: How much shorter? If they get 



sentenced for 18 months, is that possible? What would be the 
amount of time? 

MR. PALMER: On one extreme, they might have life 
term and get a seven-year sentence, seven-year parole 
consideration. 

Under our current guidelines in Title Fifteen, 
murder is seven years. 

A simple robbery with no weapon involved usually 
we set a parole consideration date of around two years, but the 
sentence might be three to four. 

SENATOR HUGHES: So it's dependent upon the 
severity of the crime? 

MR. PALMER: We have some guidelines that we use 
as base lines. And then they still have the opportunity to 
parole a little earlier than that based on their performance and 
behavior. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any other questions? Any 
witnesses in favor or opposition in here? None. 

Pleasure of the Committee? 

SENATOR HUGHES: Move it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Moved by Senator Hughes. Call 



the roll. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 



34 



SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 
SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 
.MR. PALMER: Thank you very much. 
[Thereupon. This portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at' approximately 2:33 P.M.] 
— ooOoo — 



Jt) 



CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 



1, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California/ do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any Way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 



s 



i^ 



day of 




, 1998. 




iLYW J. mi: 

Shorthand Repoi:^er 



345-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.25 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 345-R when ordering. 






^HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




MAR 1 7 1998 

SAM {-BANCiov^O 
PUBL'-C UBRARY 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1998 
1:33 P.M. 



346-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1998 
1:33 P.M. 



Reported by 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR JOHN BURTON, Chair 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS, Vice Chair 

SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 

SENATOR JAMES BRULTE 

SENATOR TERESA HUGHES 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

WADE TEASDALE, Consultant to SENATOR LEWIS 

FELICE TANENBAUM, Consultant to SENATOR HUGHES 

TOM ROSS, Consultant to SENATOR BRULTE 

ALSO PRESENT 

PHILLIP M. CHRISMAN, Member 
Fish and Game Commission 

THERESA A. PARKER, Executive Director 
California Housing Finance Agency 

CHRISTINE MINNEHAN 

Western Center on Law and Poverty 

MARC BROWN 

California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation 

California Coalition for Rural Housing 

CAROL A. PINKINS, Warden 

Northern California Women's Facility, Stockton 

ROY MABRY, President 

California Association of Black Correctional Workers 

GERALD J. STOCKER, Captain 
California Department of Corrections 



Ill 

INDEX 

Page 

Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees; 

PHILLIP M. CHRISMAN, Member 

Fish and Game Commission 1 

Decision of CHAIRMAN BURTON to Put Hearing 

over for One Week 1 

THERESA A. PARKER, Executive Director 

California Housing Finance Agency 2 

Background and Experience 2 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Lending Outside Fresno Area 3 

Loans on Condominiums 3 

Alien Verification Process 4 

Wait for Federal Regulations to Come Out 5 

Application of Verification Process 

to Single Home Mortgages 5 

Any Other States Moving Ahead of 

Federal Regulations 6 

Any Penalties for Waiting until Federal 
Regulations Came Out 6 

Effect of Regs on Undocumented or 

Ineligible People 7 

Single Vs. Multi-family Loans 8 

Views on Consolidating the Three 

Housing Agencies 9 

Actions of CHFA to Make More Loans 

Available to Low and Moderate Income 

Households 10 



IV 



Loans to Developers of Multi-family 

Dwellings 10 

Phasing Out of Federal Rent 

Supplement Program 11 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Data on Income Levels of Households Served .... 12 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Number of People in Family that Must 

Be Eligible for a Loan 13 

Eligibility on Rentals vs. Home Loans 15 

Witnesses in Support: 

CHRISTINE MINNEHAN 

Western Center on Law and Poverty 15 

MARC BROWN 

California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation 

California Coalition for Rural Housing 16 

Motion to Confirm 17 

Committee Action 17 

CAROL A. PINKINS, Warden 

Northern California Women's Facility, Stockton 18 

Background and Experience 18 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Overcrowding at Women's Facilities 19 

Possibility of Punishment Options 

outside of Incarceration 20 

View on Substance Abuse Programs 20 

Ideas on Programs to Reduce 

Recidivism 22 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Programs for Inmates with Children 23 

Problem of Drugs in Institution 24 



Programs for Staff 25 

Sexual Harassment Complaints 26 

Planned Training in Sexual Harassment 27 

Percentage of Male and Female Staff 28 

Adequacy of Training 29 

Personal Occasions of Sexual Harassment 30 

Sexual Harassment of Inmates 31 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Percentage of Prisoners That Are 

Revocations of Parole 32 

High Rates of Recidivism in California 33 

Biggest Problem within Prison Population 33 

State Smoking Policy in Prisons 35 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Implementation of New Grooming Standards 37 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Theory behind Prohibition on Dyeing 

Gray Hair 39 

Aggressive Placement of Ex-prisoners 

in Job Opportunities 40 

Use of Prisoner's Advisory Councils 41 

Motion to Confirm 41 

Witnesses in Support: 

ROY MABRY, State President 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 41 

GERALD STOCKER, Facility Captain 

California Department of Corrections 41 

Committee Action 42 

Termination of Proceedings 43 

Certificate of Reporter 44 



P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— ooOoo — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There's a situation with 
Mr. Chrisman. I was just given a letter of opposition to the 
appointment. I'd like to hear from who's here, then put it over 
because Senator Hayden wants to be here. Put it over for 
Monday, take it up next Thursday. It'll be plenty of time. 

If there's people here, I don't want them to have 
to come back. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Unless they live here. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The other thing is, depending 
on what's happening with bonds, and it looks like not much, we 
could be in session more than Monday and Thursday next week. 
That's where we are. 

Committee will come to order. 

[Thereupon the Rules Committee 
acted upon legislative agenda 
items.] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We were going to pull 
Mr. Chrisman over until the end, pending Senator Hayden 's 
arrival to speak on this. He's locked in at the airport and 
probably isn't going to be here in time today. 

It would be my intention, then, to put this off 
until Monday, to have the hearing Monday. Then there would be 
floor action by at least Thursday unless we meet earlier in the 
week, which would give the body time to meet the time deadline. 

If there are people here either in support or 
opposition who can't be here next week, like that are coming 



from out of town, they could speak now. Otherwise/ we'd have 
you come back next Monday. Thank you. 

Theresa A. Parker, Executive Director, 
California Housing Finance Agency. Yes, ma'am. 

MS. PARKER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and 
Members. My name is Theresa Parker, and I appear before you 
today to seek your approval on the confirmation to the position 
of Executive Director of the California Housing Finance Agency. 

I believe your staff has provided you with a copy 
of my resume and my background, and also some information on the 
Housing Finance Agency. 

But I thought I would touch briefly on my 
experience and my qualifications that have brought me to this 
position today, and also to just touch on how they relate to the 
California Housing Finance Agency. 

I started my career in state government over 23 
years ago as a student assistant. I have worked my way up 
through a variety of positions in state government in the 
professional managerial areas, primarily in the budgetary and 
fiscal responsibilities of the state. 

I served as the Undersecretary of the Health and 
Welfare Agency, and I also was recently, before coming to go 
CHFA, served as the Chief Deputy Director in the Department of 
Finance, where I sat on more than 30 boards and commissions, 
many of them having to do with bond financing and housing tax 
credits and tax exempt financing. 

These qualifications, I believe, really blend, 
then, to the heart of what the California Housing Finance Agency 



does. It is a very unique agency in state government. It 
really acts as a state chartered bank, where we provide lending 
at below market interest rates, using funds from the capital 
private sector market for affordable housing to both single 
family and people seeking safe, affordable multi-family 
residential housing. 

Over years, the agency has provided almost 7.6 
billion in capital financing to affordable housing. We've 
created over 80,000 units, and — excuse me, served single 
family lending to over 80,000 families and created — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you lend money on anything 
outside the Fresno area, or are you going to follow Karnie 
Hodge's past policies? 

MS. PARKER: Actually, I've really tried to say. 
Senator, that the agency has really been working in the last 
five years about trying to do more and more of its servicing of 
lending in the single family area to the high cost areas. 

And I checked just the last week, and this year 
we've done about $450 million worth of loans, and over half of 
that is in the target of high cost areas, which are primarily 
the regional coastal counties. 

So, considerably less of our lending really is in 
the Central Valley. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Can you make loans on like 
condominiums ? 

MS. PARKER: We make loans on condominiums in our 
high cost areas because the cost of housing is so expensive, and 
particularly in areas like San Francisco and Los Angeles. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Your answer is yes? 

MS. PARKER: Yes, it is, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Can you address the alien 
verification process question? It seems to me that the 
department's jumping ahead of the federal regulations, jumping 
ahead of everything and going beyond the federal regulations. 

Have you given thought to retroactivity? 

MS. PARKER: Well, Senator, let me tell you what 
we're doing. We have just sort of started our process, and 
we're really following on the heels of what the Housing and 
Community Development Department has done, who've gone through 
the whole hearing process on their regulations. We've sort of 
started out with where they left off, since we have some similar 
programs. 

We are in the process now of basically developing 
draft regulations. We have — before we have started the 
process, we are actually meeting with industries, stakeholders, 
advocacy groups, to develop and hear their comments before we do 
our draft regulations, which we will be taking to our board 
along our timelines at our May board meeting. 

We think it's very important to get input into 
the process before we start it, given that there are a number of 
concerns. We also think it's important to be able to get some 
of the issues raised, because we plan to be spending some time 
with the federal government, who has issued interim guidelines 
that came out last fall, and is expected to issue guidelines — 
or, regulations next month. 

So, we are raising issues through these processes 



so that we can get more information from the federal government. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why not wait until you see what 
they do? 

MS. PARKER: We expect that our timelines 
actually will coinside with their timelines. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why don't you wait till you see 
what they do before you start doing something that their regs 
may or may not preclude? 

MS. PARKER: I think the dilemma for the state 
agency. Senator, is that because the law was passed and 
effective upon enactment in August, that we are needing to move 
forward to implement regulations. And I think also — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There are no regulations to 
implement. That's my point. 

MS. PARKER: There are — the federal government 
has given us interim guidelines from which to develop and base 
regulations. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There are no regulations. 
There are some guidelines. There are no federal regulations to 
implement. 

My only question would be, why not wait to see 
what you're dealing with before you start dealing with it? 
Which, I guess, could be a rhetorical question. 

Do you know whether or not the verification 
process would apply to outstanding single home mortgages? 

MS. PARKER: Our plans are not to do 
that. Senator. Ours would be prospective. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Wouldn't work too well, would 



it? 

MS. PARKER: No, it wouldn't. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You have, as I understand it, 
there was one proposed regulation that was going to do that. I 
guess that wasn't your fault, though. 

MS. PARKER: Again, I think. Senator, HCD has 
gone through a process of developing some regulations. We have 
essentially looked at what they've done and are working with 
them when some of our programs are similar. 

But we are in the process of taking their 
information and then going out to the advocacy groups and 
essentially hearing for ourselves what are their issues. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is there any other state that's 
moving ahead of the federal regs? 

MS. PARKER: Senator, we are in conversations 
with our colleagues in other states. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's kind of a yes or a no. 

MS. PARKER: Not that I'm aware of. Senator. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What would we lose if you 
waited for the federal regs. 

In other words, saw what you're dealing with 
before you tried to deal with it. Would we lose some money or 
some dough? 

MS. PARKER: Senator, it's hard for me to answer 
the question because I don't know how long we would be waiting. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What would we lose if we waited 
for the federal regulations to come out before implementing 
them? Is there a penalty? 



MS. PARKER: Not that I'm aware of, unless the 
federal government essentially challenged that the tenants of 
our bond financing did not meet — was not consistent with 
federal law. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The only way that would happen 
is if you're jumping ahead of the game. If their regs come out, 
and you comply with their regulations, you'd be consistent with 
what ever they did. There 'd be no chance of jeopardizing the 
bonds . 

MS. PARKER: I don't think that that's likely, 
but I just say theoretically, given the question you asked. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The question I asked, the only 
way you could be found out of sine with the regs is when the 
regs came out and you acted before. If you don't act until the 
regulations were there, unless it was either a slip-up or a 
total refusal to follow the regs, there couldn't be a problem. 

MS. PARKER: Senator, one thing I would point 
out, that there's a substantial amount of our program that we 
are actually the agents of the federal government on in our 
multi-family. Our regulations would not proceed that process at 
all. We would only be issuing regulations on state programs. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: If you had a grandfather, and 
if somehow there was a relative that was an undocumented person 
or ineligible, would that affect the grandparents or somebody 
who was actually eligible and not covered? 

MS. PARKER: One of the things that we are 
looking at, that we are talking with some of the sponsors of 
projects, is how we would treat, on the multi-family side. 



8 

people who are in existing units and people who would be 
applying for units. 

Certainly, as I mentioned/ in the single family 
side, this is all prospective. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Shouldn't it be the same with 
multi? 

MS. PARKER: It depends on who is on the 
documents for the loan. If a family comes in on a single 
family side, and one of the couple, one person, had legal 
citizenship or had permanent legal status, they could 
essentially get the loan and their family member, who would also 
be living in the house, wouldn't have to be on the loan, and 
there would be no problem with that situation. 

On the multi-family side, requirements currently 
be that all adult members in the family are registered. And 
with the way we are talking about drafting the regulations is 
that for family members that are currently in multi-family 
housing, that their family members — grandparents, children — 
would be grandfathered in. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's multi-family? 

MS. PARKER: Those are rental apartment 
Houses. 

So, we lend on both single family, and we also 
help build affordable multi-family rental housing. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, I'm a developer. I get 
money from you, and then it's like somebody can't move in. My 
grandfather can move in, but he's got to leave my grandmother 
out because she's undocumented and he isn't? 



MS. PARKER: The people who would apply for 
rental housing, for the affordable units, would have to — at 
least this is the way we've drafted the regulations and are 
essentially going through a discussion process — that they 
would all have to meet, have a legal status. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: If they own a home, they get a 
pass. If they're renters, they don't? 

MS. PARKER: Well, prospectively — 
retrospectively, if their grandparents were not legal, or they 
had children, they would be grandfathered in. 

Prospectively, we would, on the multi-family 
side, require that any adult would meet the citizenship and 
legal residency status. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's your feeling on 
consolidating the three housing agencies? 

MS. PARKER: There was a task force that was 
convened two years ago to look at the consolidation of HCD — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's your feeling? 

MS. PARKER: I follow the recommendation of all 
of the people that participated in that, saying that they should 
not be consolidated. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why? 

MS. PARKER: Because the determination was that 
the entities that were targeted for each group to serve were 
diverse enough that we would cause more confusion to them to 
meet their specific requirements by trying to collapse and join 
everyone together. We want to simplify the process for 
sponsors, particularly given how difficult housing is to build, 



10 

not make the more difficult. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What actions has the CHFA taken 
to make more loans available to low-moderate and low income 
households? Are you going to do anything? 

You're making stuff available to people that may 
not need the program. 

MS. PARKER: One of the things that the agency is 
very proud of is that over 60 percent of our loans go to low and 
very low income families. The average income of a family that 
we lend to for a single family house is under $34,000. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about when you're lending 
money to the developers of the multis? 

MS. PARKER: The multi-family rates are, in each 
program we do below market rates. And in multi-family, it's 
between 6.2 and 6.5 percent. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What are doing to make sure 
that the people renting them are the people that need it? In 
other words, you're making funds available to people to buy a 
house who may not even have the down payment. 

What are you doing when you're lending me the 
money as a developer to make sure that I'm letting people of 
lower income in? 

MS. PARKER: We have requirements with anybody 
who is our sponsor to meet the af fordability requirements on 
each loan we do. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Which is? 

MS. PARKER: That the units have to be at a 
minimum of 20 percent af fordability, and we have projections up 



11 

that are 100 percent affordable units. We, as part of any 
lending and underwriting — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's 20, 50, and 100, you said? 

MS. PARKER: It's 20 percent at 50 percent of 
median income. That's the minimum amount of af fordability for 
our lending. But we fund projects that have 100 percent 
affordability. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, the minimum would be, it's 
got to be 20. What do you use to try to get the 20 up to 50 or 
60? I mean, if the person on their own wants to do it, you 
don't give any credit? 

MS. PARKER: No, no. Senator, the agency's goal 
and mission is to provide and promote more affordable housing. 
We try to underwrite and work with for-profits and nonprofits to 
get as much affordability out of every unit we can. 

In fact, we also are trying to preserve units 
that may cross over to above market rate rents to preserve them 
to be below market rate rents for affordability. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: One last question. 

Is there anything that your agency can do when 
the federal rents supplement program ended or is ending, and 
they're phasing out units — at least there's people in San 
Francisco that could afford to live there today, and they've got 
to move out tomorrow — to try to move into the breach? Is 
there something you can do? 

MS. PARKER: That's something that we are looking 
as being one of the primary activities for our next year, is to 
look at the issue of preservation. 



12 

There are federal programs that their contracts 
for subsidy for af fordability are phasing out. We have 
positioned ourselves, we developed a program two or three years 
ago, to go out and deal with those kinds of sponsors to see if 
through the kind of lending that we could do, that we could help 
them refinance, at the same time, keep as many of those units as 
possible under affordable housing. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: If you help them, I think that 
ought to be the price they pay. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you now keep any data on the 
households you serve according to income levels? 

MS. PARKER: Yes, Senator. We basically keep 
very good statistics on the income levels of all of our 
borrowers. That's why I quoted you the fact that the average 
income of all of the borrowers in our programs are under $34,000 
a year for our first-time home buyers. We're very proud of 
that. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What about renters? 

MS. PARKER: Renters, our af fordability is about 
7 5 percent for low and very low incomes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: That's current? 

MS. PARKER: These are absolutely current 
statistics. These are the statistics that we actually put 
together for a presentation that we did before the Assembly 
Housing Committee last fall. 

We also have, for our single family, again, given 



13 

the low incomes/ three out of four of our single family loans go 
to first-time home buyers that only put 3 percent down. So we 
again, we are really trying to help people be able to see home 
ownership as a dream. 

SENATOR HUGHES: That's commendable. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I just have a question that I 
think I asked you earlier. 

How many people in the family have to be eligible 
for a loan? The applicant and anyone else? 

MS. PARKER: No, Senator, if one person in the 
family applies, as long as we take that person's income into 
consideration, that one person can get a loan. We won't look at 
any other member whose name would not be on the title. 

SENATOR AYALA: But earlier regulations prohibit 
a loan to someone if all the members were not eligible along 
with the applicant? 

MS. PARKER: Currently when we — one of the 
eligibility requirements is that people have to meet the income 
test for their family; they have to be a legal citizen or 
permanently residing in this country, a legal citizenship 
status. 

The only change now under federal law, when we 
adopt these regulations in the future, will be that instead of 
self-certifying, they would have to provide proof of their 
citizenship status. 

SENATOR AYALA: In the Department of Veterans 



14 

Affairs, if a veteran is eligible and gets a loan, the rest of 
the family don't have to be veterans. 

MS. PARKER: Right. 

The only person that we would look at on the loan 
document is the person who's on title. 

SENATOR AYALA: Earlier regulations required 
every member to be — 

MS. PARKER: Only the people who are on the loan 
documents. Only those people had to look at certification. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'm reading from the analysis 
here. It says, "Under the prior HCD draft regulations, every 
member of a family must submit proof of eligibility. If any one 
family member were deemed ineligible, the family would be 
rejected for the housing, or, if already living in it, would 
have six months to vacate." 

MS. PARKER: Senator, I think maybe what they're 
touching on is the requirements that HCD has drafted in their 
regulations for people living in rental housing, not in the 
housing where they would purchase the home. 

SENATOR AYALA: This is not true any more? This 
requirement that every member be eligible? 

MS. PARKER: The requirement that HCD has 
proposed, that you would look at certain members in the family 
prospectively, all the adults in the family prospectively who 
are living in the rental housing. 

And retrospectively, upon recertification, you 
would look at — just to see if the primary family members met 
the citizen requirement. 



15 

SENATOR AYALA: As long as the applicant met the 
requirements, it doesn't matter who else lives in that dwelling? 

MS. PARKER: The way that HCD is drafting the 
regS/ and what we are looking at for our regulations, 
prospectively we would have to look at all adult members in the 
household because right now, all adult members in the household 
are on the rental agreement. 

SENATOR AYALA: I don't want to be redundant, but 
if you're a veteran, you get a veteran loan, and not all members 
of the family have to be a veteran. 

MS. PARKER: Yes. 

One thing veterans will have, veterans will more 
than likely be excluded under federal law anyway, so they 
haven't had to be looked at. 

SENATOR AYALA: I don't have any more questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Speakers in support? 

MS. MINNEHAN: Mr. Chair, Members of the 
Committee, Christine Minnehan, Western Center on Law and Poverty 
in support of Ms. Parker's nomination. 

We had a real experience of Ms. Parker's 
commitment to low and very low income renters last year during 
the budget process. She aggressively and assertively opened a 
number of doors with the administration to ensure that one of 
the most important programs for moving moms from welfare to work 
received the kind of hearing that it deserved. 

She has continued to work with us on supportive 
service housing. We met last week on the alien verification 
regulations that you have asked all the questions that we were 



16 

posing to her. We felt as though we were receiving the kind of 
hearing, the kind of consideration, to move from what we 
consider the unduly harsh and premature regulations that the 
Department of Housing has advanced to ensure that the thoughtful 
construct that is necessary in those regulations comes out of 
the California Housing Finance Agency. 

And then finally, the at-risk buildings, the ones 
in San Francisco that we have been working on, we felt that the 
ideas, the program that Ms. Parker's beginning to pull together 
is going to provide us with the best possible opportunity for 
saving as many of those at-risk units as is possible in the 
state of California. 

Thank you for consideration of our remarks. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Next. 

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman and Members, Marc 
Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and 
California Coalition for Rural Housing here to strongly support 
this nomination. 

Last year, when it came time for the Governor to 
act on our self-help housing budget proposal, Terry Parker was 
in the Department of Finance's office, in the Governor's office, 
talking to staff, making sure that it was signed. 

Last year when it came time for the Governor to 
consider our farmworker housing grant budget augmentation 
proposal, again, Ms. Parker was down in the Governor's office to 
get that bill signed, or helped influence it. We appreciate 
that. 

She's been very effective. As well as the budget 



17 



item that Christine Minnehan was talking about, she's been 
helpful, has been there, has been an advocate, been effective 
She's helped keep the focus on rental housing at CHFA. That 
wasn't always the focus, and she's also helped make sure that 
the money is equitably distributed around the state, and it 
doesn't all go to Fresno. 

So, we strongly support the nomination. Thank 



you 



opposition? 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any other support or 



Pleasure of Committee? 
SENATOR HUGHES: Move it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Moved by Senator Hughes. 
Please call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

MS. PARKER: Thank you all very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 



18 

Carol Pinkins/ Warden, Northern California 
Women's Facility, Stockton. 

MS. PINKINS: My name Carol A. Pinkins. 

I want to thank the Committee and Chairperson for 
giving me the opportunity to speak regarding my experience and 
qualifications for the Warden at the Northern California Women's 
Facility. 

I have approximately 22-plus years in YACA, Youth 
and Adult Corrections, 8 years with the Department of Youth 
Authority, and 14 years with the Department of Corrections. 

I started my career, my state career, in 1975 as 
a permanent intermittent correctional officer at California 
Medical Facility, and also I was a permanent intermittent group 
supervisor for the Northern California Youth Center. 

I was eventually picked up as a full-time 
correctional officer at the California Medical Facility, and I 
later promoted and went to the Department of Youth Authority as 
a youth counselor. While working with the Department of Youth 
Authority, I held numerous positions: Youth Counselor; Parole 
Agent I; an instructor at the Youth Training Academy. I was 
also a Treatment Team Supervisor, and last, prior to me 
transferring from the Youth Authority, I was the Assistant 
Superintendent of a youth camp, a conservation camp. 

Shortly after that, I transferred back to the 
Department of Corrections at Sierra Conservation Center as a 
Community Resource Manager, where I was responsible for 
interacting with the community and volunteer program at Sierra 
Conservation Center. 



19 

While at Sierra Conservation Center, I was in the 
classification of a Correctional Counselor 1, Correctional 
Counselor II acting. Program Administrator. And then at that 
point I decided that I wanted to work with females, so I went 
down to CIW on a lateral transfer. I want to say that that was 
probably one of the greatest opportunities and experience that I 
have had in my career. 

While at CIW, I was responsible for coordinating 
and implementing the HIV and AIDS program. I also started the 
battered women's group at CIW, which is now at all of the female 
institutions. We currently have just started that program at 
the Northern California Women's Center, in conjunction with the 
San Bernardino County Women's Center. 

While at Sierra Conservation Center — after I 
left CIW, excuse me, I went to California Men's Colony as a 
Correctional Administrator. While there, I was responsible for 
program as well as classification. I then went back to Sierra 
Conservation Center, and I was in the classification of 
Associate Warden. I promoted also to Chief Deputy Warden. 

I was also asked to go North Kern State Prison, 
and I acted as Warden for five months, and while at Sierra 
Conservation Center, I was the acting Warden for seven months 
because the Warden had retired. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any idea to 
solutions to the overcrowding at the women's facilities? 

MS. PINKINS: Currently, we're 196 percent 
overcrowding, and we have double celling. We're the 270 design. 

We're not in the gym yet. We have not had any 



20 

serious problems with the overcrowding. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any ideas on how to 
deal with that problem, like possibly punishment options outside 
of incarceration? 

MS. PINKINS: One of the areas that I've talked 
to some of people in our community, and they're looking at a 
program where, as the women leave the institution, they're going 
to set up some type of training program in the city of Stockton. 
I'm looking at that. 

I personally feel that if there was a viable 
training program for women to get some skills, nontraditional 
types of skills, where they could go out into the community and 
earn an adequate living for their children. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's after they get out. 

I mean in lieu of being in. 

MS. PINKINS: Well, I think in community would 
need some type of preventive type of training for the women 
prior to them coming into the institutions. But after they 
leave institution, there still needs to be some type of training 
program, or something where the women will not return back to 
the institution. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's your view of the 
substance abuse programs for women? 

MS. PINKINS: I don't have that program at my 
institution, but I think it's a good program mainly because — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why is it not present in your 
institution? 

MS. PINKINS: Because the program went to the 



21 

Central California Women's Facility. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON; There's nobody in your 
institution that's got chemical dependency problems? 

MS. PINKINS: Yes, they do, and we have — 

CHAIRM7\N BURTON: I'm not blaming you for not 
having it. I'm blaming Mike Neal. 

I mean, they only put it in one place? Could you 
use a program like that? 

MS. PINKINS: Yes, I could. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How expensive or what would it 
take for you to do that? More space, more money, more what? 

MS. PINKINS: I think I could do with the current 
space that I have. The program now requires at least 200 
inmates, and my population is only 760 inmates. So, it may be a 
problem in keeping 200 inmates in that program. 

We currently have the AA and NA coming in, in the 
evenings, and we have that program. And the program is full, 
and we have waiting list. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why would there be a waiting 
list? 

MS. PINKINS: Because we have 60 to 7 people 
currently in the program, and the room only holds so many 
people. We utilize volunteers to come in. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, the room holds a finite 
number of people. How about a bigger room? 

MS. PINKINS: We could utilize a bigger room, 
but we would need additional volunteers and we'd need additional 
sponsors, staff, to be in the room. 



22 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Did you try to do that? 

MS. PINKINS: Not at this point. I've only been 
there eight months, and we would — it would entail having 
another volunteer staff to supervise the volunteers who are 
sponsoring the program. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: This is as much for your bosses 
out there as it is you, but I think that almost every study 
indicates that if we could deal with the chemical dependency 
problem in a constructive way for people who are in prison, that 
it would dramatically increase the possibility that they might 
not come back when they get out. 

I would just hope, if they only need some staff 
people to supervise volunteer sponsors in AA and NA, even if 
they aren't putting the money into the program like they should, 
and how they come up like it's got to be 200, I think they could 
do it with 100. I think that would be beneficial. There's 
nothing much more cost effective than a twelve-step program that 
costs nothing. If you hit one out of three, it's a pretty good 
saver. 

What other ideas do you have, if any, on programs 
to reduce recidivism among women inmates? 

MS. PINKINS: We have a Battered Woman's program 
there. What that program does, it helps the women identify the 
patterns, and also increases their self-esteem. 

We have a Parenting Program. It assists the 
women in becoming parents, and how to deal with their children. 

We have a Making a Better Woman. That program 
deals with self-esteem. It's in conjunction with the religious 



23 

program. 

One of the things that I found with females is a 
very low self-esteem. If we can get programs in the facility 
that could help them increase their self-esteem, be more 
confident when they go out into the community, I believe most of 
them — more would be successful. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'll let Senator Hughes ask 
about dental care. 

SENATOR HUGHES: You were talking about 
self-esteem and parenting. 

What kind of program do you have for these 
inmates to deal with their children who are minors? What 
happens when they have visitation? Do you have any prescribed 
type of interaction activities for the mother and the children? 
Or, do they just come in and see them? And how frequently do 
these children have contact with their parents? 

I'm not talking about infants. I'm talking at 
least maybe school aged children or pre-kindergarten children. 

MS. PINKINS: The only program we have is the 
visiting program. It depends on where the child lives, and how 
long it takes them to get to the institution. 

SENATOR HUGHES: When they visit, is there anyone 
from your staff to help them? 

I would imagine, you know, I have children. And 
I can't imagine how you even feel when you see your mother 
incarcerated. 

Do you have anyone to guide or counsel these 
mothers about how they deal with them, having them for such a 



24 

short period of time? How they show love and affection, and 
it's quite all right to do it, even though they're in a penal 
institution? 

MS. PINKINS: Yes. We have the Parenting 
Program. That program, they meet once a week, and they talk 
about those kinds of things, on taking responsibility for your 
children. It's okay to love your kids, embrace them. And that 
program is very successful. It's a six-week program, and after 
the completion of the program, we have a small graduation. 

But I've gotten feedback from some of the women, 
and it does help them because prior to being incarcerated, 
they're taught things that they never thought about before. So, 
it's not a big program, but it's a start. We are getting good 
feedback from the women in the program. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Especially since maybe some of 
these women didn't have the kind of love and care that you might 
be teaching them about in this program that you talk about. 

MS. PINKINS: Yes, and we also have another 
program where there are women who have been abused as children. 
In that program, we talk about feelings, we talk about how you 
felt, and it's okay, you know, in protecting your kids to make 
sure that that does not happen to your children. 

It's a caring program, and as I said earlier, we 
are getting good feedback from the women. 

SENATOR HUGHES: How wide spread is the sale and 
distribution of drugs in the institution that you're in now? 

MS. PINKINS: In our institution, we have not had 
a lot of incidents resulting in drugs. 



25 

• 

Recently we did do a search of the institution, 
and we utilized the canine dogs from the Northern California 
Youth Center. And the dog made 12 hits, and we did urinalysis. 
We have not gotten the results in from that yet. And we did 
find a small bag of marijuana. 

SENATOR HUGHES: How long ago was that? 

MS. PINKINS: This was about two weeks ago. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Is marijuana the most 
threatening drug that you found there, or do you have higher 
levels? 

MS. PINKINS: The marijuana in that particular 
incident was the only drug that we found. 

SENATOR HUGHES: The only one? 

MS. PINKINS: Yes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What efforts do you also have 
for staff, if any? You know, it's not just the inmates that 
might be addicted to some of these drugs. 

What do you have for staff? 

MS. PINKINS: You mean like programs? 

SENATOR HUGHES: Yes. 

MS. PINKINS: If a staff member — we have what 
we call the EAP program, where, if a staff member is having 
problems, they can be referred to the Employee Assistance 
Program where they can get some counseling in those areas. 

We also have counselors. We have supervisors who 
are trained to talk to staff, to be sensitive to the staff. An 
example, if you have a person who's not coming to work, I try to 
relate to my supervisors that it's important that you, when you 



26 

notice something different from a staff member, that you sit 
down and talk to that staff to see if there's something you can 
do to assist that staff before they get to the point where we 
end up taking adverse action or firing the employee. 

Because I think that it's really important that 
we become pro-active, if we let staff know what our expectations 
are, and then we assist them every day, doing their job the best 
that they can do. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you have any complaints of 
sexual harassment, whether it's on the inmate side or on the 
staff side? 

MS. PINKINS: I have not since I've been there 
the eight months. I have not received any sexual harassment 
complaints. 

The Department does have a procedure for that. 
We have EEO counselors, where the employees — we have pictures 
of these individuals and their work phone numbers, so if a 
person feels that they're being sexually harassed, they can 
either go to those individuals, talk to these individuals, and 
the individuals can come forward. The counselor will come 
forward and talk to my chief deputy, who is the EEO coordinator, 
and the information is then brought to me. 

At that point I would notify my Central Office 
and let them know that we have a problem, and we can ask for an 
outside investigator to come in and do an investigation. 

Also, you take the time to talk to the employee 
to make sure that the employee's okay. Sometimes it may result 
in having to move some employees in order for the investigation 



27 

to be completed, so that the employee does not feel that they're 
being — reprisals are being taken against them. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Whether it's for the employee or 
for the inmate, do you have any planned training? 

We as Legislators have sexual harassment 
workshops, and our employees have those workshops so that we 
have become sensitized to the body language or the verbal 
language that we might use to an employee to make them feel 
harassed, whether in fact they are or not, as some people are 
more sensitive to others. 

Do you have any plans for anything like that? 

MS. PINKINS: We have scheduled yearly training 
for all staff. It's done in block training, where once a year 
it's mandatory that staff receive training on how to identify 
sexual harassment. 

We also have a training program for our 
supervisors in informing them as to what they need to do in 
regards to sexual harassment. 

SENATOR HUGHES: That's interesting because, 
well, maybe your boss doesn't know that you have that. Maybe 
you just have it in your institution, since it's all female. 

How frequently? You say it's once a year, and 
are your employees mandated to take this, or do some people come 
and some people don't? 

MS. PINKINS: We have what we call block training 
and it's the mandated training for the year, and it's an all day 
training. And you have different subjects in the training. We 
have different instructors who teach the training. 



28 



training 



SENATOR HUGHES: What about sexual harassment. 
MS. PINKINS: Sexual harassment is part of that 

SENATOR HUGHES: How big a part of it? 

MS. PINKINS: It's approximately a two-hour 



course 



SENATOR HUGHES: Two hours? 

MS. PINKINS: Yes, it's a lesson plan. Well, 
initially, the Department did an eight-hour course for all 
employees. I believe it's like in '91 or '92, when we had the 
sexual harassment big episode at the Department, and it was 
mandated that everybody was trained. 

What we basically do now is a refresher course 
just to remind people, to show them how to identify sexual 
harassment. And also we have a supervisors training where time 
is spent in sexual harassment, telling supervisors this is 
sexual harassment and it won't be tolerated. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you think that's sufficient 
since you have so many females there? 

What percentage of your professional staff is 
female as compared to male? 

MS. PINKINS: I don't know. I can't give you a 
percentage. 

SENATOR HUGHES: You have a rough idea. Just 
give me a rough idea. How many females do you have to males? 

MS. PINKINS: I'd say maybe a little over 50 
percent females, and that includes the clerical staff also. 

SENATOR HUGHES: By that, what I'm getting at is 



29 

not necessarily to just males harass females. Females harass 
females, too. So, in your sexual harassment training workshops, 
do you include the kinds of situations that a female, or 
illustrate the kind of situation where a female could be 
sexually harassing another female? 

MS. PINKINS: Yes, we do, or a male. Females do 
harass males. So, we try to use all the examples. We try to 



use — 



are females. 



SENATOR HUGHES: But your inmates, by and large. 



MS. PINKINS: Yes, they are. 

SENATOR HUGHES: So, you have it both ways. 

Are you completely satisfied? You've been there, 
what, eight months? 

MS. PINKINS: I've been there eight months. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Are you completely satisfied 
that everything will be all right as you continue your tenure at 
this institution? And if per chance something broke out, it 
would be a complete surprise to you because you have this once a 
year training? 

MS. PINKINS: No, I'm not 100 percent satisfied, 
because I think sexual harassment is something you have to do 
continuously. It's something you do every day as you walk 
around. You watch people's behavior. You talk to people. You 
remind people that the behavior is not appropriate. 

I'm not just talking about sexual harassment. 
I'm talking about any kind of behavior. I think it's important 
that supervisors look at behavior, and if it's inappropriate. 



30 

then we need to do something about it. 

It's an ongoing task, and you can't say because 
you give two hours of training once a year, that it's not going 
to happen. It could happen at any moment with the people that 
you least likely expect it to happen to, because I've heard 
people say, oh, that person would never do anything like that, 
and then you find out that they did. 

So, I think it has to be ongoing. Supervisors 
have to be alert. They have to be available. They have to 
check behavior when it's inappropriate behavior. They have to 
confront the staff and let the staff know that this kind of 
behavior is not tolerated. We won't tolerate it. And if you do 
it, then you could possibly lose your job. You could lose your 
livelihood. 

And I think that's a message that you have 
continuously set out, and people understand that when you start 
telling them that they're going to lose their jobs. 

So, I think it's ongoing and continuously. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Since you have been a state 
employee for many, many years, did you feel that you actually 
had any occasion which you felt sexually harassed? 

MS. PINKINS: Yes, I have. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What did you do? 

MS. PINKINS: Well, I'm the kind of person who 
deals with it. I spent years in the military. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you know karate? 

MS. PINKINS: I don't know karate, but I know 
crazy. 



31 

• 

One of the things I think that you have to teach 
people is that if someone does something that you don't like, 
that you need to pull that person aside and get some 
clarification on the behavior, or tell them, I don't like what 
you said to me, or I don't like the way you treated me. 

That's important for me. I think in my career, 
I've had people make comments to me that probably could have 
been construed as sexual harassment, but I was able to nip it in 
the bud at an early stage by just pulling that person aside and 
letting them know that I don't like this behavior, and please 
don't do it in front of me because I won't accept it. 

That's been quite effective for me. And when I 
deal with my staff, that's one of the things that I tell them. 

But I am also aware that the person who's being 
harassed does not have to say anything. But supervisors, if 
they observe that kind of behavior, they have an obligation and 
a responsibility to report it, pull that person aside, tell them 
that's inappropriate behavior, and tell them to stop. 

If they don't stop, then we have what we call 
progressive discipline where you take the necessary action 
against that individual. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What about the inmate 
population. You're talking about your peer group, but what 
about the inmate population? 

Does anyone ever encourage them to report, or are 
the inmates fearful of some sort of retaliation? What would you 
do to kind of allay any fear that they would have? 

MS. PINKINS: The inmates at the Northern 



32 

California Women's Facility know that they can report anything, 
because I'm available. I'm on the yard. I walk the yard. I 
hold classification every Thursday. I talk to them. 

They're very comfortable with some of the staff 
that we have. If something like that is happening, I don't 
think they would hesitate in letting some staff that they 
trusted know about it. 

Like I say, when I go out on the yard, they don't 
hesitate to tell me what's going on. And I do that purposefully 
so that they feel comfortable enough so that there won't be any 
surprises. If something like that's going on, I feel that they 
feel comfortable enough to come to me. 

Also, I feel my staff is comfortable enough 
where, if an inmate brought that information to them, that they 
would not hesitate to call me or call one of my supervisors, and 
we would get on it immediately. 

SENATOR HUGHES: All right, thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Ms. Pinkins, your prison is one 
of the smallest inmate populations. Just barely over 700. 

What percentage of those are revocations of 
parole? 

MS. PINKINS: Don't quote me on this, but I think 
right now I have about — my population is 763, and my reception 
center, which mostly are parole violators, the last I counted 
was running about 90, 96. 

SENATOR AYALA: What percent of those are — 

MS. PINKINS: About 96 out of 7 60. 



33 

SENATOR AYALA: Ninety-six? You're doing much 
better than the total aystem, because the total system in 
California is about 80 percent returns in our prisons today. If 
it wasn't for those, we wouldn't need additional prisons. 

Should we view that, and I'm talking about the 
total population of returnees, as a failure in our incarceration 
programs? 

We're doing something wrong when you get the 
highest percentage in the country of any state — I understand 
there might be another one ahead of us — of people who return 
to prison after being released. We're doing something wrong. 

Do you have any idea what that is? 

MS. PINKINS: Well, we're releasing inmates back 
into the community, and I've worked the males and females. 

I think in the female more so than the men, they 
don't have viable skills where they can go out and become 
gainfully employed. And one of the things when I talk to 
inmates is, I tell them that, you know, you need to go out, and 
you need to be serious about finding a job. 

I think sometimes society doesn't hold people 
accountable when they are released that they have to find a job, 
because many of the people can go out and they can get on 
welfare. And I know all of you've heard people say, why should 
I work when I can get more on welfare. 

SENATOR AYALA: What would you consider the 
biggest problem within the prison population today in your 
prison? 

MS. PINKINS: I think the biggest problem for the 



34 

female inmates is self-esteem. They have a very low 
self-esteem. 

I think when you have a low self-esteem, it's 
very difficult to go out and find a job. It's very difficult to 
feel good about who you are. 

I think until we can encourage these women to 
feel good about themselves, then I think we are going to 
continue to have that revolving door. 

It's no different for me or any other woman 
that's not in prison. It's important that you feel — or any 
person. It's important that you feel good about who you are and 
what you do. It's no different from staff. If they don't feel 
good about themselves, if they don't feel good about what they 
do on a daily basis, then they don't do a good job. 

So, I think the bottom line is getting them to 
develop that self-esteem that's needed to go out and feel 
confident enough that you're going to get a decent job. 

SENATOR AYALA: What is the biggest problem in 
the prison that you're a warden of is self-esteem? 

MS. PINKINS: And I'm working on that. One of 
the things that I'm doing — 

SENATOR AYALA: Because we visited a prison just 
north of here. Their problem was drugs and homosexuality. 
Yours is esteem. 

MS. PINKINS: No. I have not — I'm not telling 
you that there's not drugs in the prison that I'm in. 

SENATOR AYALA: You have no drug problems in the 
prison you're in? 



35 

MS. PINKINS: I'm not saying that. 

I'm saying that, as I mentioned to Ms. Hughes, 
that we currently did a large scale drug search, and we utilized 
the cadets from the Academy, and we used the dogs from the 
Department of Youth Authority. 

We did find marijuana. And the dog did make 12 
hits, and we did urinalysis. 

Traditionally, we have not found a lot of drugs 
in that institution. 

SENATOR AYALA: So, the men's prisons must be 
different from the women's prison? 

MS. PINKINS: Yes, I think they are somewhat. 

SENATOR AYALA: Would you explain to the 
Committee what is the state smoking policy in state prisons? 

MS. PINKINS: The policy is no smoking in the 
buildings. The inmates are allowed to smoke out on the yard. 

And if they are caught smoking in the buildings, 
the staff has been instructed to write what we call a 115, which 
is a disciplinary report. And that report is written, and the 
inmate loses what we call good time, where time is taken away 
from the inmate. 

SENATOR AYALA: Are you enforcing that policy? 

MS. PINKINS: Yes, we do. 

SENATOR AYALA: There's no smoking within the 
enclosed buildings in your prison by the inmates or the -- 

MS. PINKINS: Or the staff, yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: — or the correctional officers? 

MS. PINKINS: Yes. We are enforcing it. If I 



36 

catch them smoking^ you'd better believe I'm going to be talking 
to them. 

SENATOR AYALA: What happens when you find them 
smoking? 

MS. PINKINS: To the inmates or the staff? 

SENATOR AYALA: Either one. 

MS. PINKINS: If it's the inmates, there's what 
we call, as I said earlier, a 115 is written. The inmate loses 
good time. I believe that's a division after you could take up 
to 30 days. 

SENATOR AYALA: You are really enforcing and 
implementing the law by executive order that there be no 
smoking. 

Are there cigarettes and tobacco sold at the 
prison? 

MS. PINKINS: Yes, it is sold in the canteen. 

SENATOR AYALA: We told the federal government 
that we are opposed to smoking by the doctors at the highest 
level, yet we subsidize the tobacco companies in the south, so 
we have a little bit of a problem there that we prohibit smoking 
in the prison, but we sell tobacco. 

And then they take it into the cell with them. 
At Norco, we have a real problem that I'm concerned with. The 
buildings themselves, they're timber. They're not stucco. And 
they smoke in their cell, so if they ever catch on fire, we're 
going to have a heck of a lot of liability suits on our hands. 

Yet the warden knew they were doing it. And in 
fact, when people complained, inmates or officers that don't 



37 

smoke, she transfers them to another institution. 

I'm trying to get that clear because smoking is 
not a life and death penalty. We have people there for murder 
and others, but if they can't follow minor regulations like 
that, how they heck can they be in charge of an institution? 

It's been corrected by Mr. Terhune, who called 
the Warden and told him, you better knock it off. 

But I don't know how they can stop it if they, 
again, sell tobacco and cigarettes within the grounds. We ought 
to stop that. 

If they want to smoke, it's not my problem. But 
my point is, if the Governor's executive order of 1993 said 
there shall be no smoking within public buildings, yet they're 
allowed to do it, and if anybody complains, they just transfer 
them out. 

In your prison, you really enforce the smoking 
prohibition. 

MS. PINKINS: Yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

MS. PINKINS: You're welcome. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Mr. Chairman, I have just one 
last question. 

I like the fact that you stress self-esteem. I'm 
wondering, how are you at your institution implementing the new 
grooming standards? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No beards, no mustaches. 
[Laughter. ] 

MS. PINKINS: One of the first things we did at 



38 

our institution when we got word that the grooming standards 
were coming down is, we met with the inmates. We have what we 
call a WAC, Women's Advisory Council to the Warden. We met with 
WAC, who represents the inmate population. We talked to them. 
We went, step by step, what the grooming standards, how it would 
impact them. 

One of the concerns the women had was their hair, 
gray hair, which I never thought about because I let mine grow 
out. But they were concerned about the gray hair because 
currently we allow them to dye their hair. 

We talked to them about it, and they were very 
receptive. They didn't feel that they wanted to demonstrate. 
We worked with them. I met with them about three or four times 
to talk about how we were going to implement. 

They brought up some very good points. We looked 
at the points they brought forward. And some of them were 
implemented, and some of them were not, but we explained to them 
why we couldn't do it that way, because it's a directive and we 
have to follow the directive. 

We have not had any problems whatsoever. We have 
not had any demonstrations. We have not had any inmates saying 
they're not going to do it. 

The biggest problem is, how are we going to 
implement, and we're going to utilize them to help us implement 
it. And they have been out talking to the inmates, so we have 
not had a problem with that. 

As far as self-esteem, they are concerned that 
their hair will be gray, and they won't look as nice. And we've 



39 

• 

told them that this is a prison, and, you know, we have rules, 
and we have to follow the rules, and they accept that. 

SENATOR HUGHES: That way, you don't have to 
worry about green, or yellow, or purple hair? 

MS. PINKINS: Yes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I guess you're not the right 
one to ask, but what was the theory behind saying to women they 
can't touch up their hair? I mean, like somebody's going to 
escape, and they had dark hair, and now they're going to bleach 
it? 

I mean, I can see grooming and that. But if 
you're talking to women about whether or not they want to show 
their hair gray, or whether to have it dark, I mean, I'm missing 
the public safety aspect of that. 

You could tell people not to have green and 
purple hair, but that just seems to me a little bit like a 
bizarre deal. 

I think the grooming thing with the short hair, 
and this and that, but I don't even think the Marines tell you, 
you can't have it. I mean. Art Agnos, Grecian 21, right? He 
used to it pretty good. 

Do you think that part of the problem with women 
getting out, not finding a job, is maybe somebody doesn't want 
to hire an ex-con? Because I don't know anybody, if they had 
kids, the kids would be in a foster home before. 

I mean, the theory that somebody could get out 
and get on immediately a welfare program, paying them more than 



40 

minimum wage, all they're eligible for is general relief, which 
I think now is about 260 a month. 

SO/ I don't think that would be the deterrent as 
much as people being leery of hiring somebody who's been in 
prison . 

You only have one facility/ but I'm wondering, 
one, if when people go out, the institution or somebody tries to 
at least aggressively help place people in these job 
opportunities, if not positions? And talk to prospective 
employers to let them know that this person may have been in the 
bucket, but they've rehabilitated or whatever, and give them 
some kind of references to the person's behavior while they were 
in. 

Do you do that, or would that be too burdensome 
administratively, unless you've got a special person? 

MS. PINKINS: There are some inmates who parole 
and they've worked. I'll give you an example. 

We have a landscape program, and some of the 
inmates do very well. They go out into the community, and we 
have had the instructor write letters to them. 

And I do know of some inmates who have gotten 
jobs here in the Sacramento area who were incarcerated in the 
Stockton facility. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: One last question. 

Do all the prisons have like a prisoner's 
council, like you said, a WAC? 

MS. PINKINS: Like a WAC, yes. The men have what 
we call a MAC, Men's Advisory Committee. 



41 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You wouldn't know whether they 
were smart enough in all the institutions, when you have 
something coming down as new as the grooming code, to sit down 
and talk, and say, how do we work through this? So that, all of 
a sudden, there's not a rebellion over something like shaving 
off a mustache, or cutting hair. 

To your knowledge, is that SOP? 

MS. PINKINS: Yes, I think most of the wardens 
utilize those committees to get information out to the inmate 
population. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Pleasure of the Committee? 

SENATOR LEWIS: Move confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Anyone in support or opposition? 

MR. MABRY: Chairman Burton and the Rules 
Committee Members, I'm Roy Mabry, State President of the 
Association of Black Correctional Workers. 

I'm here to give complete support for 
confirmation of Warden Pinkins. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

Is there think other? 

MR. STOCKER: Thank you. Good afternoon. 

I'm Gerald Stocker. I'm a facility captain at 
the Department of the Corrections, currently working at the 
Inmate Appeals Branch. 

I've been employed with the Department of 
Corrections for 23 years. I've known Ms. Pinkins for ten years. 
Currently worked for her in different capacities at Sierra 
Conservation Center. 



42 

I know you understand her experience, and I won't 
go further with that. 

But I want to tell you just briefly about 
Ms. Pinkins personally. My experience with her, she's always 
been of the highest integrity. She's been very forthright, fair 
and reliable. 

I believe she's shown over many years that she 
has the character, the correctional knowledge, the managerial 
skills, and the ability to lead a prison, 

Ms. Pinkins is always vigilant with safety and 
security issues, with budgetary constraints, and with employee 
relations. 

And I support her fully in her confirmation as a 
Warden, and I hope you do, too. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any other? 

Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 



43 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 
MS. PINKINS: Thank you. 
[Thereupon. This portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 2:42 P.M.] 
— ooOoo — 



1 



44 

CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 

, 1998. 





^velynjTmi; 
Shorthand Reporter 



346-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.50 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 346-R when ordering. 






^HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




t}0^ 



••r'^T. 



1 7 1998 






DO^' 'MHNTS DEPT. 

MAR 1 7 1998 

SAN FRANCiOv^^ 
PUSLiC LIBRARY 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

MONDAY, MARCH 2, 1998 
1:38 P.M. 



347-R 



i 



Reported by 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



MONDAY, MARCH 2, 1998 
1:38 P.M. 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR JOHN BURTON, Chair — 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS, Vice Chair 

SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 

SENATOR TERESA HUGHES 

MEMBER ABSENT 

SENATOR JAMES BRULTE 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

WADE TEASDALE, Consultant to SENATOR LEWIS 

FELICE TANENBAUM, Consultant to SENATOR HUGHES 

TOM ROSS, Consultant to SENATOR BRULTE 

ALSO PRESENT 

PHILLIP M. CHRISMAN, Member 
Fish and Game Commission 

SENATOR JIM COSTA 

SENATOR TOM HAYDEN 

BARBARA E. PATRICK, Member 
State Air Resources Board 

ASSEMBLYMAN ROY ASHBURN 



Ill 

INDEX 

Page 



Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees: 

PHILLIP M. CHRISMAN, Member 

Fish and Game Commission 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Support by SENATOR JIM COSTA 3 

Opposition by SENATOR TOM HAYDEN 7 

Spring Run Chinook Salmon 7 

Loss of State Control 8 

Petition for Listing as Endangered 8 

Court Ordered Recovery Program 9 

Governor's Emergency Declaration 

to Override Endangered Species Act 10 

MR. CHRISMAN's Role as Governor's 

Spokesperson 10 

Use of Hound Dogs in Hunting Bear 10 

Possible Conflicts of Interest 11 

Carrying Out Illegal Administration 

Policies 12 

Need for Environmentally Oriented 

Commission 12 

Statements by SENATOR AYALA re; 

Questioning Candidate's Attitude, not 
Qualifications 13 

Questions of SENATOR HAYDEN by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Legally Designated Spokesperson for 

Governor 14 



IV 



Questions of MR. CHRISMAN by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Recollections of Statements Made on 

Behalf of Governor Wilson 15 

Reasons for Blaming Federal Endangered 

Species Act for 1995 Flooding 16 

Legality of the '95 Emergency Reg 18 

Position on Sacramento Spring Run 

Chinook Salmon 18 

Feeling that the Salmon Is in Trouble 20 

More Wed to Taking of Fish and Game than 
Enchancement 21 

Actions against Poaching 23 

Need to Avoid Appearance of Conflict 

of Interest 24 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Success of Department in Protecting Fish, 
Wildlife and Native Plants 24 

Commission Slant toward Economic 

Development Due to Lack of Diversity 

in Membership 25 

Recommendations to Governor on 

Policy Direction 26 

Rebuttal by SENATOR HAYDEN 27 

Diversity on Commission 27 

Vote for Incidental Take Permit on 

Sacramento Spring Run Chinook Salmon 27 

Dispute with Commissioner Thieriot 

regarding Principal Responsibilty of 

Commission 28 

Emergency Suspension of Endangered 

Species Act 29 

Listing of Spring Run Salmon 29 



Motion by SENATOR LEWIS to Move Confirmation 

to Floor with No Recommendation 30 

Committee Action 31 



BARBARA E. PATRICK, Member 

State Air Resources Board 31 

Support by SENATOR JIM COSTA 5 

Support and Introduction by 

ASSEMBLYMAN ROY ASHBURN 31 

Background and Exerpience 32 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Disproportionate Effect of Air 

Pollution on Minority and Low-Income 

Communities 35 

Research on Air Pollution in and 

around Airports 35 

Role of ARB in Reducing Air Pollution 

in Moderate and Low Income Communities 36 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Usage of MTBE as Gasoline Additive 37 

Motion to Confirm 38 

Committee Action 38 

Termination of Proceedings 38 

Certificate of Reporter 39 



P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— ooOoo — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Next item, Phillip Chrisman, 
member of the Fish and Game Commission. 

MR. CHRISMAN: Thank you. Senator. 

Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Mike Chrisman. 
I've had the opportunity of appearing once. I'd like to recast 
my comments very briefly and indicate that I do come from the 
southern San Joaquin Valley. I'm a fourth generation San 
Joaquin Valley resident, and I've served in a variety of 
capacities in state government, in the private sector. And I've 
spent a great part of my life dealing with natural resources 
issues. 

One of the things that I asked for when I came to 
the Commission about a year ago was to, if I could, take a look 
at the Commission's strategic plans, some of the long-term goals 
and objectives the organization had set. And I found that there 
was no strategic plan. 

So, under my leadership, the Commission has 
instituted a strategic plan. We're in the process of putting it 
together now. We've held a couple of public sessions, one 
workshop in Long Beach, and an extended public input session 
here in Sacramento. 

This plan for us will provide a working document 
to help guide the Commission in its activities over the next few 
years. It'll be a working document. It'll be a document that 
becomes a part of our operations. 

Part of that document will be, of course, we'll 



have a mission and vision statement, and set some priorities, 
and do a number of things. But more importantly what it will 
do, based on the public input that we've received, based on the 
ideas of Commissioners, we're going to be going out and doing 
some focus group discussions with some of our constituent 
groups, spending some time and going through these issues, 
asking some questions that have come out of these earlier 
discussions . 

And out of it, we've identified a number of 
issues. The Commission prior to the institution of the public 
hearings identified the area of marine resources, endangered 
species, roles and responsibilities of individual commissioners, 
our budget, and some of our operations to take a close look at. 

As a result of the public hearings and input that 
we received, we heard from the public in a resounding way. What 
we heard from the public and essentially our constituent group 
is, we got an over whelming endorsement, the validation of the 
process that we were going through. Some of the things we 
needed to take a look at, we needed to match funding with our 
budgets. We needed to think about as a Commission, together 
with our constituent groups, we needed to do a resource mission 
or vision statement, I should say; take a look at some of the 
resource issues in the state and establish a vision statement, 
and provide for some public input into that process. 

One of the key issues we heard over and over 
again in this session was the need to build coalitions, to build 
community and business partnerships as we moved to try to work 
to bring about fish and wildlife enhancement here in 



California. 

A couple of things I'd like to see out of this 
effort/ one being a mission statement that articulates the 
Commission's trustee and stewardship responsibility for fish, 
wildlife and plant species here in California, consistent with 
continued, of course, hunting, and fishing opportunities. A 
clear vision, of course, that says that the Commission will be 
anticipatory and pro-active in its decision making process, and 
a clear commitment to constituent interaction on an ongoing 
basis. 

These are some of the things I've been working on 
together with the Commission since I've been there. Senators, 
it's a pleasure for me to be here today and stand before you as 
a Commissioner. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Costa, I think you 
wanted to make some brief comments. I know you have other 
business to do. 

SENATOR COSTA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members 
of the Rules Committee. 

I have two constituents here today that are 
before the Rules Committee for confirmation purposes. The first 
individual is Mr. Mike Chrisman who has opened. 

I have known Mr. Chrisman for 24 years and have 
worked with him during that time period on a variety of issues 
affecting the Central Valley, affecting resource-related 
issues. 

And while he and I obviously are on different 
parties, I think what I'm here to tell Members of the Rules 



Committee is that you have an individual who is a hard worker, 
who is extremely sensitive and conscientious, who has the 
ability to work with a variety of interests to seek common 
ground and to achieve consensus. He takes his job extremely 
seriously. 

He and generations of his family have been 
stewards of the land going back to the previous century in 
California. And his desire to serve on the State Fish and Game 
Commission is one that I know comes from the heart. 

Our colleague. Senator Hayden, has addressed a 
letter to you indicating his opposition to Mr. Chrisman's 
confirmation. I would suggest after you hear Senator Hayden's 
comment/ who is here this afternoon, that you allow an 
opportunity for Mr. Chrisman to respond, because I think he has 
an ability to do so. 

I am joined by Senator Pat Johnston and other 
colleagues who are supporting Mr. Chrisman's confirmation, and I 
believe he would do a good job. 

Do I believe that he and I will see eye to eye, 
or agree on every single issue? No. However, I do believe that 
he will be open to all Members of the Legislature in attempting 
to achieve consensus and to try to protect California's 
resources, not just in the short term but in the long term as 
well. 

For all of those reasons, I would ask you that 
you listen from carefully to his confirmation process. 

Thank you so much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you want to. Senator, in the 



interest of your schedule, and I saw no real opposition to 
Supervisor Patrick, you may want to make your comments on her. 

SENATOR COSTA: Thank you, I appreciate that. 
They're having trouble keeping a quorum in the Housing 
Committee. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Maybe we'll keep you here then. 
' [Laughter. ] 

SENATOR COSTA: Doesn't bother me. 

The second constituent that I have before the 
Rules Committee this afternoon is Supervisor Barbara Patrick. 
Supervisor Barbara Patrick is before the Rules Committee and for 
the Senate for confirmation of the slot on the California Air 
Resources Board. 

I carried the legislation that required that a 
member of the San Joaquin Valley Air Resources Control Board 
have a permanent seat on the California Air Resources Board, and 
the reason for that was simple. The largest geographical air 
basin in the state is the Central Valley, the eight counties 
beginning in San Joaquin County, going all the way south to Kern 
County. It is a unique geographical area of California. 

And as we attempt to comply with both the federal 
and the state clean air requirements, I think it's important 
that we have a person from that board, the San Joaquin Valley 
Air Resources Control Board, sitting, as does the Bay Area, as 
does Southern California, who also have permanent members on the 
California Air Resources Board. 

The legislation obviously was enacted into law. 
The previous individual is no longer serving in the capacity 



where they can represent the Valley air district. The new 
person that was selected by her peers is Supervisor Barbara 
Patrick, who does a very good job/ I believe, in Kern County. 
She has worked on a number of different issues. She has been a 
conscientious and active member on the San Joaquin Valley Air 
Resources Control Board and is their selection to serve on the 
State Air Resources Board in that slot that represents the 
Valley counties. 

So, as you indicated, Mr. Chairman, there doesn't 
appear to be any significant opposition for her appointment, and 
I would ask that you listen to her carefully, and that we 
hopefully can confirm Supervisor Patrick so that she can 
represent the San Joaquin Valley Air Resources Control Board on 
the California ARB. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. Senator. 

I have a couple questions. 

But I wonder if it's easier in the interest of 
time -- I don't see any of the other Senators present, but we 
have their comments in support — is that we, instead of asking 
some questions here and then hearing from the opposition, and 
then going back over questions, I think we could hear from the 
opposition, then give you a chance not only to respond to that 
but to these questions. 

Do you have any other people to make statements 
here on your behalf? I know we've got the statements of several 
Senators and others for the record. 

MR. CHRISMAN: And others have made statements. 
Senator, at the February 2nd hearing for the record, and they 



I 



7 

are not here today. I had a number of organizations here for 
the February 2nd hearing. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is there anybody here right now 
you want to have step up to the plate, or we could have the 
written record speak for itself. 

MR. CHRISMAN: The written record speaks for 
itself. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Fine. 

Opposition, Senator Hayden. Who else? Are there 
any other people present in opposition, or they just sent 
letters; that's great. 

SENATOR HAYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 
Members. 

I appear here today, I'm sorry to say, in 
opposition to Mr. Chrisman on the merits, but also to call 
attention to the need for some reform of the Fish and Game 
Commission. 

The Fish and Game Commission has been involved in 
a number of controversies over the past two or three years that 
raise questions as to whether or not they're primarily on the 
side of resources and the environment, or whether they are 
trying to carry out an administrative agenda that puts 
development interests, in many cases, ahead of their official 
obligations in the law. 

A case in point that does involve the Commission 
in general and Mr. Chrisman in particular is the issue of spring 
run Chinook salmon, which was in the headlines last week 
because, after years of petitioning, the federal government has 



8 

begun the process of listing these species of salmon in the 
Sacramento Delta as endangered/ as well as it should. 

This would not be the first time that a run of 
salmon has become extinct. It's very a painful and difficult 
thing to watch the foot-dragging. The numbers of the fish are 
down to incredibly low levels. 

The federal government finally acted because, 
after a number of years, the state government did not. So, we 
have an environmental issue here, but also a loss of state 
control of this program to the federal government. 

In the case of the Commission, I brought a 
petition that was 41 pages single-spaced a couple of years ago 
to the Commission, asking that the spring run Chinook be 
identified as a candidate for listing, which is a very slow 
process. Nothing happens at first. If it gets identified as a 
candidate, a year goes by to plan a recovery. 

The petition, 41-page petition, and I emphasize 
the weight of it to show how hard it is to get these petitions 
into shape, was supported by the wardens and by the staff of the 
Department that I had met the criteria for these fish to be 
listed as a candidate species. 

We had not one, not two, not three, but many more 
hearings of the Commission, during which time they rejected the 
petition and over road the opinion of their own qualified 
biologists and experts. Finally, we went to court on more than 
one occasion. We won consistently in court. The court 
basically found the Commission to be dragging its feet on the 
issue, and demanded that there be a listing and a recovery 



program. 

Now, a recovery program requires Commission 
action also. So, when the Commission was ordered to do this, 
they immediately wrote in a permit giving an exemption that 
allowed business as usual while these fish declined last winter, 
this winter. 

There's no doubt that what ever we think of the 
issues, about the environment, and about the salmon, that we 
ought to have the Commission in compliance with court orders in 
spirit and, indeed, rather than doing everything it can to 
circumvent them and drag its feet, because that simply brings 
the extinction of the fish nearer. 

Mr. Chrisman was there and voted for the business 
as usual exemption, the 20-84 permit. This is after hours upon 
hours upon hours of testimony, and over the original finding of 
the Department staff, as I say. 

Secondly, I have to indicate this wasn't the 
first time that Governor Wilson's appointees have tried to go 
around the meaning of the environmental laws, endangered species 
laws, only to be told they can't do that by the courts. 

You may remember a couple of years ago the 
Governor used the argument that there was an emergency so great 
in the State of California during the winter rains that there 
had to be a suspension of the law. And they went in, and they 
tore out a lot of vegetation and habitat for species in certain 
of our rivers. 

A coalition of ten or twelve environmental groups 
sued the Governor, sued the administration, and won on the 



10 

grounds that there was no basis in law for the emergency 
declaration, that it was simply used as a pretext to destroy 
habitat and destroy the environment using the winter storm as 
the argument rather than going to the Legislature for support in 
law. 

Mr. Chrisman was the Governor's spokesperson 
during that period, blaming the Endangered Species Act for 
getting in the way of protecting Californians against the 
floods. So, that's the second time where there's been an 
administration policy that was found to be outside the law that 
directly involved Mr. Chrisman. 

There are some other examples of this pattern. 
I'll just give you one other that's not a question of law but a 
question of orientation. 

You will remember Senator Petris and others have 
been trying to do something about the issue of whether you use 
dogs to pursue bears in hunting. A previous Director of Fish 
and Game, Boyd Gibbons in 1993, according to Sacramento Bee 
article, and I'm quoting, "had ignited a firestorm of protest 
from hunters because he announced that he personally opposed the 
use of hound dogs in hunting bear. The Wilson administration 
sent Michael Chrisman, deputy secretary of the Resources Agency, 
to the committee on Tuesday to make it clear that the 
administration opposed the bill and believes the use of dogs 
does not threaten the health of the bear population." 

Whatever you think about use of dogs to hunt 
bear, the case in point here shows again that even when the head 
of the Department expresses a personal philosophical and policy 



11 

point of view, if it's not in accord with the Governor's point 
of view, he will send Mr. Chrisman to go around even the head of 
the Department . 

Now, a couple of questions of credibility here 
ought to be brought up, then I will finish. 

In 1995, in the spring, you will remember there 
was a controversy or scandal involving Mr. Voss and the 
Department of Agriculture. In the course of that investigation, 
there were a number of newspaper articles. I'm going to quote 
from one on May 5th, 1995, from the Sacramento Bee . 

"Top state Department of Food and Agriculture 
officials who haven't followed state law and formally removed 
themselves from possible conflicts of interest say they have 
abided by an internal 'honor system' for 16 years. But records 
show the Department's number two and number three officials have 
signed documents and traveled at taxpayers' expense to meetings 
on the Continent Cattle Industries. Both men have disclosed 
that they received personal income from those sources during 
that period. The internal documents call into question the 
Department's honor system and create another embarrassing flap 
for Governor Wilson as he strives for the ..." blah, blah, 
blah. 

Coming to the point, "Undersecretary Michael 
Chrisman, who disclosed that he received more than $270, 000 from 
a Tulare County cattle ranch run by his wife, said he, 
'inadvertently' signed the order appointing 14 people to the 
California Beef Council. One is a former business partner of 
Chrisman 's and another is an acquaintance. Asked why he didn't 



12 

delegate those actions to others who don't earn income from 
cattle, Chrisman said that's a fair question, but I don't see 
this as a conflict." 

I bring this up because it's recent. It's not 
old newS/ and because when I brought these issues of being a 
spokesman for the Governor's position on the Endangered Species 
Act up to Mr. Chrisman in my meeting with him a few weeks ago, a 
very civil and fair discussion of his view and mine, he said 
that he had no recollection of having been the Governor's 
spokesperson. 

I had to go into the files to bring out material 
showing that he had been the spokesperson on events that 
occurred only a couple of years ago which were major, major 
events in the history of this debate about the Endangered 
Species Act. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I'm obviously here because I'm 
a passionate defender of the environmental laws, and I chair a 
committee whose job it is to look at those issues. 

But from the point of view of qualifications, I 
have serious reservations about the attitude that Mr. Chrisman 
has taken toward the law on a number of occasions where the 
courts have found administration policy that he was carrying out 
to be illegal. 

And I think. that we need at this point a more 
environmentally oriented Fish and Game Commission that will at 
least step up to the plate and work in partnership with 
environmental organizations and with the federal government on 
questions like what to do with the spring run Chinook. 



13 

Thank you for your time and patience. 

I'm sorry, Mr. Chrisman, to bring these up. I 
know it's painful, but I hope you'll understand that it's my job 
and my philosophy that compels me to do so. Nothing 
personal. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. Senator. 

Any other representives here from Sierra? Animal 
groups? 

Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I think that Senator Hayden is 
questioning the qualifications of Mr. Chrisman to serve on that 
committee. 

I look at the other members who are now serving. 
Although he is listed as a regional manager of Southern 
California Edison, he has a Bachelor of Science Degree in Plant 
Science, and a Master of Science Degree in Agriculture 
Education. 

He's as qualified as any of the others who happen 
to be presidents of corporations. 

I guess you're questioning his attitude about the 
laws? 

SENATOR HAYDEN: Right. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'll tell you what. Senator 
Hayden, I got a fly in my district that surfaces one month out 
of the year. I don't know what purpose it serves. 

I'll trade that for Chinook on the endangered 
species list. 

SENATOR HAYDEN: I believe that's the flower 



14 

loving fly. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's the one. We can build a 
plant that would put 800 people to work. The fly serves no 
purpose. We'll transfer it to your district and you can protect 
it. 

SENATOR HAYDEN: All right. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I guess I'd ask, on being the 
Governor's spokesperson, was he like this spokesperson in law, 
i.e., I, Governor Wilson, designate this person to be my 
spokesperson? Or did it happen to be they see things eye to 
eye? 

In other words, he was carrying the Governor's 
water because the Governor said carry the water, or that's his 
point of view and they see eye to eye, and he'd be saying that 
anyway? 

SENATOR HAYDEN: Right. He was the 
undersecretary at the time. 

All I can refer to is the prominent role he 
played in this controversy during the rains, and whether to 
blame the Endangered Species Act. He was the spokesperson on 
the flooding in Monterey County. He said that, "agencies and 
landowners have been denied the permits needed to go in and 
clean up Pajaro River and Salinas River channels. Any 
impediment that will back up water, like trees, runs the 
potential of floods. That's what happened here." 

"Chrisman said the Wilson administration is 
'pushing hard' to work out agreements with their federal 
counterparts . " 



15 

And quote, "We have unforgiving Endangered 
Species Act. We need to streamline the regulatory process." 

That seems to me to be something that one would 
remember, since it occurred in March, 1995. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: One, I'd like you to address 
the spring run Chinook salmon. 

Two, you really didn't remember when that was 
your job to say that stuff? How can you not remember it? That 
was probably your job, to get out and say it. 

I mean, I remember the deal only because I 
remember — and I can't remember now whether it was George House 
or Pete Fresetta — but I remember the issue being discussed on 
day on the Floor of the Assembly, and I don't even pay attention 
to stuff. 

So, how would you not remember making a 
statement? 

MR. CHRISMAN: When he asked me whether I 
remembered, I said, my response to the question was that I can't 
imagine that I would say something like that. I really didn't 
remember being interviewed. 

When I got the article, I obviously remembered, 
and remembered the individual questions, and remembered what led 
up to it. 

Let me characterize it, if I might. Senator, by 
saying that this occurred at a time, obviously when I was 
Undersecretary at Food and Agriculture, a time when the state 
was going through some very, very significant flood events, 
particularly in that area. 



16 

It happened -- it was happening at a time when, 
reading my comments, my comments go specifically to the federal 
act itself, and our inability at the time to get the federal 
agencies to the table to try to help us get the permits 
necessary to get in and clean up after the floods. 

Essentially, my personal view is that the Act did 
not cause -- did not cause the floods. What happened is that we 
had an inability of the regulatory agencies and the landowners 
to come together over an extended period of time, many, many 
years, to design flood control measures in that area. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Was that your point of view at 
the time? 

MR. CHRISMAN: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'll tell you, nobody in the 
administration said it. I can remember. I guess that was 
Monterey, probably more in Pete's area than George House's, but 
I can, you know, I can remember his standing up on the Floor 
during the debate on the bill. Everybody was blaming that 
which, in certain segments of our society, is a very unpopular 
thing, the Endangered Species Act, because it kind of tells 
people they can't do stuff the way they used to do it. That was 
the story that was being put out, and people that didn't know 
any better, or wouldn't know, said, well, Christ, if they're 
saying it, it must be true. 

If you knew at the time that wasn't the case, I 
know you've got to follow orders because you're working for the 
Governor, but why would you have said stuff that you didn't — 

MR. CHRISMAN: Senator, what I said was, we were 



17 

trying to get the federal agencies to deal with it in the short 
term, to deal with cleaning up these flood channels. That's 
what we were trying to do. 

Subsequently, we've had some subsequent action on 
behalf of, the following year, from the federal government, 
thanks to Secretary Babbit and Deputy Secretary Garamendi, set 
up a hotline the following year. We have just recently -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm going back. I think I'm 
going back to the incident. We've got differing opinions on 
this Committee in the Senate and within the Democratic caucus 
and Republican caucus. Although, I think more Democrats see one 
way and more Republicans see the other way. 

But the concerns going back to that point, that 
you knew that that wasn't the problem, then why did you buy into 
the deal, then just feed the fire? 

And there are some things wrong, if not, in my 
judgment, with the Act necessarily, but the way the Act is being 
implemented. And some things are being implemented in stupid 
ways, I think, by bureaucrats that are trying to undermine the 
Act because people can point to it. 

I just wonder why you felt compelled not to say 
that's not really the reason as I see it, or why were you 
jumping on board on the others that were using this as a thing 
to basically — 

MR. CHRISMAN: Because my role at the time was 
try to work to try to get the federal agencies at the table to 
deal with it, try to get these permits and get the flood 
channels cleaned out. 



18 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I think you could have done 
that. I don't think that statement helped you in doing that. 

Can you tell us something about when you went for 
the emergency reg., you or the Governor did, but the Governor 
and the emergency permit stuff, did your lawyers say, hey, this 
probably isn't legal? Did anybody ask? 

MR. CHRISMAN: I wasn't part of those meetings. 
Senator, so I don't know. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: If you were on the Fish and 
Game Commission, if you get confirmed, and somebody has to do 
something that seems to be, you know, taking a big step, does it 
not make sense to say to the attorney, where are we here? 

MR. CHRISMAN: Right. We do that almost every 
meeting with a lot of the decisions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you follow the attorney's 
advice? 

MR. CHRISMAN: Yes, we do. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Or do you say, let's go ahead, 
and by the time they get a restraining order, we would have 
cleared all the guck out. 

Comment, please, if you could, on the salmon. 

MR. CHRISMAN: Spring run salmon, Sacramento 
spring run Chinook salmon, I was appointed to the Commission 
almost a year ago now, March. I was not on the Commission when 
the Commission initially rejected the petition. 

I was on the Commission subsequent when my first 
votes that I took was to list the candidacy of the Sacramento 
spring run Chinook salmon. 



19 

I was supportive and continue to be supportive of 
the incidental take permit/ the 20-84 that Senator Hayden spoke 
to. It's a statute that allows for the accidental take of a 
species during candidacy. Accidental take by anglers, by people 
who are lawfully pumping water. State Project water and 
others. 

Essentially what the incidental take permit 
allows is for that accidental taking just during the 
twelve-month period of candidacy. 

We will, as a Commission, be reviewing the 
petition from the Department. The Department of Fish and Game 
will be coming to us, I think, in June to recommend to us 
whether or not their investigation during candidacy merits a 
listing either threatened and/or endangered of the Sacramento 
spring run Chinook salmon. 

We have as a part of our ongoing operations as 
we're in candidacy, we've asked and have gotten a monthly update 
from the Cal-fed operations group, which is a group set up under 
the Delta Accord whose main responsibility is to monitor 
fisheries, the restoration of fisheries in the Delta. And 
pursuant to our listing of candidacy, the Cal ops group have 
reported to us on a regular basis, and have said to us, reported 
to us on the goings on of the Sacramento spring run, the various 
testings that have taken place through the sampling that has 
taken place. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's your gut feeling? Do 
you think it's a problem? 

MR. CHRISMAN: Do I think the species is in 



20 

trouble? I do think the species is in trouble, Senator, yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you think action should be 
taken? 

MR. CHRISMAN: Again, we will, in June, pursuant 
to the law, we will take a look at the petition. We'll review 
the petition. We will listen to the public comment. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So I understand, in other 
words, it would be like a judge in a murder trial, you can't say 
anything until you hear everything? 

MR. CHRISMAN: Right. That's exactly right. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You can't say anything ~ 

MR. CHRISMAN: I can tell you because it was 
apparent -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In other words, I don't know 
what the proprieties are. 

But if you say it's in trouble — 

MR. CHRISMAN: By supporting candidacy, I said it 
was in trouble, I thought. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's in trouble, and if action 
isn't taken, it may — 

MR. CHRISMAN: I'm not ready to say that yet 
until I see the data coming from the Department, the final data 
that they're collecting through this candidacy. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What is your definition of 
trouble? 

MR. CHRISMAN: Well, again, the definition of 
trouble is if the species in is jeopardy. In other words, by 
numbers if the species is in jeopardy and is — has the 






21 

potential of either threatened or going extinct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And you admitted you thought 
personally it was trouble, so I guess if there's no action 
taken, it might go the way of the — 

MR. CHRISMAN: But Senator, we will take action 
one way or the other, having gone to candidacy, I think in 
August of this year. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You will take action one way or 
another. That's like you say, how am I doing in committee? 
Well, we'll take action one way or another. 

A concern that's been expressed by those that did 
not take formal opposition is such — and these are my words, 
not theirs — but you seem to be more wed to the taking of fish 
and game than to the enhancement of fish and game. 

MR. CHRISMAN: Not the case. Let me go back. 
Let me talk about — a little bit about my background and my 
commitment to natural resource protection of fish and wildlife, 
if I can. 

As you all know, as I said earlier, I come from a 
farming, long-time farming and ranching family in the San 
Joaquin Valley. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Your grandfather never had to 
bother with any of these regs; did he? 

MR. CHRISMAN: He never did. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It was just, dam up that crik. 

MR. CHRISMAN: Never had to deal with any of 
them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Life was easier. 



22 

MR. CHRISMAN: But what I have done over the 
years is, we look at our operation. The stewardship activities 
that we've undertaken in our own operation, I think, are 
exemplary. 

Issues that I've been involved with as a citizen, 
issues of farmland protection. Issues of protecting prime 
agricultural land across California is an issue that I've been 
involved with for the last 25 years as a county planning 
commissioner, as one who's actively supported issues of farmland 
protection in the San Joaquin Valley. I'm currently actively 
involved in a group that is trying to put together a consensus 
based approach from agriculture to deal with the issue of 
conserving agricultural land. 

And when I — to equate that to fish and wildlife 
protection — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm the only guy here that 
voted for the Williamson Act, so I know about preserving land, 
which is not really relevant to what I asked. 

MR. CHRISMAN: Let me connect that now, if I 
might, to fish and wildlife. 

Fifty percent of the land here in California is 
in private ownership. And essentially, anything that we can do 
to conserve and protect that valuable land resource also should 
conserve and protect valuable fish and wildlife resource. 

We've got a long ways to go. I'm not here to 
tell you that the job is done. 

What I am here to tell you is, my record and my 
commitment to building coalitions across environmental groups. 



23 

across landowner groups, is there. 

I've also been very supportive when I worked with 
Bill Jones, very supportive in the creation of the San Joaquin 
River Conservation Parkway along the San Joaquin River. When 
the Nature Conservancy came in to Tulare County, the Kwee Oaks 
Preserve, very actively involved in helping to bring that 
about . 

Now that the Conservancy has turned it over to a 
local land trust, I'm involved in that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Okay, you don't answer it, but 
I understand it. 

Two other things. You have, I think, the Fish 
and Game — and I got into this God knows why — dealing with 
abalone and other stuff about the poaching. 

MR. CHRISMAN: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What kind of action would you 



support' 



Wasn't that a great hearing, the abalone deal? 
SENATOR HAYDEN: Enjoyed it very much. 



Mr. Chairman. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: What kind of actions can you or 
would you take on the problem of poaching of some of these more 
ocean resources? 

MR. CHRISMAN: I think my record will show since 
I've been on the Commission I have very little tolerance to 
poaching, to the breaking of the Fish and Game laws. I've 
consistently been one to come down hard. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Would you be supportive if it 



24 

was indicated, and I think Thompson finally got one, but like 
moratoriums on certain species? 

MR. CHRISMAN: Yes, I voted on the abalone issue. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: One last thing, which is just a 
piece of free advice, which will be worth what you pay for it. 

But on the point raised by Senator Hayden, where 
the appearance of the conflict, because I assume that your wife 
owning that farm, it didn't come from her grandfather. It 
probably came from yours. I know how you have to do that, but I 
just think you just have to really understand that there may be 
certain times where you're going have to take a pass — 

MR. CHRISMAN: I understand that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: — on something that gives 
either the fact or the appearance of a conflict. 

And then, can you comment, because I didn't 
clearly understand it, but like $250,000? Oh, that was just 
income from your wife? 

MR. CHRISMAN: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's your family business. 

MR. CHRISMAN: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any other questions from 
Members of the Committee? Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: This will be brief. 

In your opinion and your association with the 
Commission, and what the Department has done or not done, do you 
think that the Department has really been successful in 
protecting our fish, wildlife and native plants, or do you think 
they've really failed? 



25 

MR. CHRISMAN: Tough question. 

I don't think — first of all, let me say, I 
don't want to characterize the Department and/or Commission's 
action with respect to protecting fish and wildlife as a failure 
or a win. 

Let me say that it goes, from my perspective, we 
have a burgeoning population in the state that's putting the 
fish and wildlife resource, natural resource base, under 
increasing pressure. 

The challenges to protect that valuable resource 
have never been greater. The challenges of helping the 
Department, working in concert with the Department, working in 
concert with the biologists, working in concert with our 
constituent groups to bring about habitat restoration, if you 
will, fish and wildlife restoration, I think, have never been 
greater. 

I think that the Department itself is doing an 
admirable job under very difficult circumstances in a state 
that's growing by leaps and bounds. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you think that one of the 
problems might be, or might not be, the fact that there's little 
diversity in the membership, and because of this lack of 
diversity in background in these areas, that everything has been 
more slanted to the economic development side? 

MR. CHRISMAN: You mean on Commission membership? 

SENATOR HUGHES: Yes. 

MR. CHRISMAN: If you look -- if you look at the 
Commission membership now, there are five of us. You have one 



26 

member who is the former president of the Nature Conservancy, 
strong environmental background. That's Mr. Boren. 

You have one member who is the former publisher 
of the San Francisco Chronicle , sportsman, pretty strong 
environmental background. 

You have myself, business and farming 
background. 

You have Mr. McGeoghegan from Maxwell, farming 
background. 

And you have Mr. Weggeland, the newest member 
from Riverside coming from a business and development 
background. 

I guess what I'm saying to you is that the five 
members, on balance, are a pretty eclectic group, have a pretty 
— come at the issue from a very diverse background, very 
diverse points of view. 

I think the Commission is well served by the 
existing diversity on the Commission. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What are going to be your 
recommendations if the Governor asks you for policy directions? 
Will you pursue them as a Commissioner and recommend certain 
things to the Governor? And what things would you recommend to 
the Governor? 

MR. CHRISMAN: I think the important thing to 
remember on a Commission like this is independence. I think in 
order for a Commission like the Fish and Game Commission to be 
effective, we have got to be independent. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Would you really recommend that 



27 

to the Governor/ because the Governor is the appointing 
power? 

MR. CHRISMAN: Yes, yes, I would. 

Does that answer your question. Senator? 

SENATOR HUGHES: Yes. 

MR. CHRISMAN: Thank you. 

SENATOR HAYDEN: Mr. Chairman, might I just 
respond briefly on a couple of these points? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Sure. 

SENATOR HAYDEN: On the issue of the diversity on 
the Commission that Senator Hughes brought up, the reference to 
Frank Boren is reference to the only person there that has been 
trying to comply with the law and vote in favor of the 
Commission moving ahead. 

If I heard him correctly, Mr. Chrisman said he 
voted for listing, the candidate listing. 

MR. CHRISMAN: The candidate listing right after 
I got on the Commission. 

SENATOR HAYDEN: There was a vote for candidate 
listing that you participated in? 

MR. CHRISMAN: Yes, there was. 

SENATOR HAYDEN: In any event, that was court 
ordered or court pressured. 

I recall Mr. Chrisman voting for the incidental 
take permit. 

MR. CHRISMAN: I voted for candidacy on June 13th 
last year, and then I did vote, as I indicated, for the 
incidental take permit. 



28 

SENATOR HAYDEN: Mr. Boren has been the strongest 
supporter. 

Mr. Thieriot was brought up. I was very 
concerned about that gentleman's appointment to the Commission, 
so I'm not here extolling his credentials, but here's a sample 
of the testimony and argument on December 3rd, 1997, between 
Mr. Thieriot and Mr. Chrisman. It goes on and on. It's, a very, 
very frontal dispute. 

But essentially Commissioner Thieriot says: 

"What I'm saying," to Mr. Chrisman, "I think that 
the language does say the following: 'The people of California 
have vested in the Department of Fish and Game the principal 
responsibility,'" underlined. "That means that I think you are 
supposed to put that responsibility above all other 
responsibilities including your balance with socio-economic 
concerns. " 

Mr. Chrisman, Commissioner Chrisman: "It doesn't 
say that though." 

Commissioner Thieriot: "But I think it does. It 
says 'the principal responsibility' that means your number one, 
your first." 

Commissioner Chrisman: "I've already said it's 
my first ... but it doesn't preclude me then from factoring in 
socio-economic activities in making my decision." 

Commissioner Thieriot: "Factoring in is another 
way of saying compromise. So what you're saying is that as you 
read it, it's not inappropriate for you to compromise your 
number one goal in pursuit of a purpose that isn't even 



29 

referenced in the Act." 

With respect to the emergency issue, this was a 
heck of an emergency. I just want to remind you that the 
Governor declared a five-year emergency suspension of the 
Endangered Species Act that could be enacted by any local entity 
in the State of California without any evidence being necessary 
except a certification that there was an emergency in their 
opinion. 

The question from the Chair to Mr. Chrisman was; 
"Did you support that, " as if the question was narrowly meant to 
mean, were you in a room to decide that? 

The answer was, "I wasn't in the meeting." 

But if the question construed more liberally was, 
did you support that, the answer would be Mr. Chrisman obviously 
supported that and was a spokesperson for it until the courts 
threw it out. 

With respect to the salmon, the federal 
government has now listed the salmon, taking the matter out of 
our hands when it could have been in our hands if the Commission 
had supported the petition two or three years ago. 

To say he'll be reviewing what the Department has 
to say in June means another season has gone by, the second, and 
there has to be some credibility here, Mr. Chairman, forgive me, 
because the original recommendation of the Department was to 
list the fish. Something has now happened where the Department 
staff has backed, reconnoitering and developing new data about 
whether to list the fish, unsatisfied with the first data. 

And the court was satisfied with it. They said 



30 

you have to do this. Satisfactory. 

This is stalling in the name of all deliberate 
speed. And you cannot stall around questions of extinction. 

The incidental take permit means you can 
continue killing the fish indefinitely. If you stall long 
enough, the fish will be extinct. 

What they've already done is damaged their 
reputation with the environmental community, found guilty of 
noncompliance with the law in more than one court decision, and 
now the federal government is taking it away from them when it 
should be in state hands. 

Those are just clarifications and responses to 
the witness's testimony. 

I would urge the Committee to reject. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Brulte, who is ill, was 
willing to get out of sick bed and fly up to be here. There was 
a decision made that I don't think that that was proper, and so 
there will be no recommendation, but it will be moved to the 
Floor for the Floor to work its will. 

SENATOR LEWIS: So move. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That motion made by Senator 



Lewis. 



You can call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 



31 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, it's to the Floor. 

SENATOR HAYDEN: Thank you. 

MR. CHRISMAN: Thank you, Senators. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Supervisor, Mr. Ashburn wanted 
to make a brief introduction, and Senator Costa's remarks were 
already on the record. 

ASSEMBLYMAN ASHBURN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
Senators. 

I'm very happy to be here today to introduce to 
you and to express my strong support for Barbara Patrick. 
Barbara Patrick is member of the Kern County Board of 
Supervisors. She represents Kern County on the San Joaquin 
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, and she is 
uniquely qualified for the California Air Resources Board. 

I had the privilege and pleasure of serving with 
her on the County Board of Supervisors for two years. In that 
relationship, one gets to know their colleagues very well. And 
I know that Barbara Patrick is a person of integrity, someone 
who does her homework, is very diligent, and who is very direct 
in speaking her mind. 

I also know that Barbara Patrick is a fair 
person, someone who will take a look at the issues, especially 
in this capacity as they relate to air quality issues, and make 
decisions which are well grounded in the scientific evidence and 



32 

which I believe will be fair for all concerned. 

SO/ I would urge your favorable consideration for 
Barbara Patrick's confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't see it on the list 
here, but the one that got me was the Kern Country Tree Planters 
Association. 

MS. PATRICK: The Tree Foundation. 

ASSEMBLYMAN ASHBURN: That's our environmental 
group. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I understand that. And that 
counter-balanced you and Costa, so she's back at even. 

Supervisor, please. 

MS. PATRICK: Thank you very much, Assemblyman 
Ashburn . 

It's really a pleasure for me to be here today. 
I'm very honored to have this opportunity to introduce myself to 
you and to acquaint you with my experience in public office and 
my commitment to the quality of California's air. 

After teaching for twenty years in the 
Bakersfield City School District, I was elected to the Kern 
County Board of Supervisors in 1994. And then, in 1997, I was 
appointed by our Board to serve on the San Joaquin Valley 
Unified Air Pollution Control District, where I serve as the 
Chairman of a policy committee for the San Joaquin Valleywide 
Air Pollution Study Agency. 

I'm very proud of the scientific information that 
is coming out of the Study Agency, and this information has been 
used by the Valley Air District to help further emission 



33 

controls in a cost effective manner. 

The Study Agency includes representatives from 
agriculture, from industry, from the Air Resources Board, EPA, 
as well as the Valley Air District. And it's an excellent 
example of varied interests coming together to combine their 
talents and achieve common goals. 

I grew up in the Los Angeles Basin, and so I'm 
well aware of the ground haze that used to be in that area in 
the 1950s and '60s. That haze was not only responsible for 
respiratory problems of the folks who lived there, but also it 
was an adverse impact to the entire environment. Fortunately, 
with the passage of the federal and state Clean Air Acts, and a 
lot of hard work by all parties, California's air is getting 
cleaner. 

In my short tenure on the Air Resources Board, I 
have been very impressed by the prudence and the diligence that 
is shown by the staff. Staff have proven that they're committed 
to clean air. And in pursuit of this goal, they take the extra 
steps needed to ensure the recommended controls are grounded in 
sound scientific principles. 

In addition, they understand that diverse 
interests must have a voice in cleaning the air. And this 
approach promotes support for control measures which achieve 
federal and state air quality goals. 

To protect the air that we breathe today and 
tomorrow, I believe that all constituents, environmentalists, 
regulatory agencies, businesses and industry, need to work 
together. They need to commit themselves to finding mutually 



34 

agreeable solutions to very complex challenges. For these 
solutions to be effective, they must be balanced and 
scientifically based. 

Since assuming office in 1994, I have served on 
numerous committees which deal with contentious concerns, and I 
continue to be impressed by the solution-oriented attitude that 
is present in our communities and in our state. Common sense, 
resourcefulness, and the spirit of cooperation usually prevail. 

I'm very optimistic about the future of 
California's air quality, and I maintain that optimism because 
our knowledge of air pollution is growing every day, and I've 
seen the energy that occurs when concerned individuals come 
together. 

I also believe that we all have a commitment as 
Californians to make sure that the air quality is better than it 
was when we were growing up. 

Should you confirm my appointment to the Air 
Resources Board, I would work diligently, responsibly, and in 
partnership with all interests to improve air quality in the 
State of California. 

I'll be happy to answer any questions that any of 
you might have. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you very much. Supervisor. 

Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you very much for being 
here today. 

Do you think that this concern that we have with 
the disproportionate effect of air pollution and other 



35 

environmental hazards on minority and low-income communities is 
justified, or is it just something that you're not ready to deal 
with? 

MS. PATRICK: I think that we have to be 
concerned about the air quality for all Calif ornians. 

I know that recently there has been a ten point 
initiative that the South Coast Air District has come forward 
with to study just the kinds of issues that you're talking 
about . 

ARB is doing more monitoring of that, of that 
concern, to find out if indeed there is scientific basis to see 
if that is true. 

So, I think it's very important that we keep an 
eye on it, and at the same time that we're moving forward with 
the kinds of initiatives that clean the air for all 
Californians, like the reformulated gasoline and the cleaner 
cars and so forth. 

SENATOR HUGHES: A portion of my Senate district 
is adjacent to LAX. Do you know of any research that has been 
done regarding air pollution in and around an airport? 

MS. PATRICK: I'm unaware of any, but I do know 
that that would be something that would be regulated by the 
federal government, and so that certainly is something that we 
may be looking forward to in the future, because that's an 
important part of our state implementation plan. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I was just curious as to whether 
their pollution would be greater within a certain number of 
miles from an airport, and whether ARB is looking at this. 



36 

Certainly, in terms of new developments, and as 
new housing and businesses go up, will this be a concern of your 
agency? 

MS. PATRICK: I don't know specifically that 
there's anything in the works, but I think it's something that 
certainly should be looked at because we need to know where our 
air pollution is the worst so that we can then come up with 
mitigating factors. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Certainly we know it's worse in 
low income, because they're driving vehicles that do a pretty 
good job of polluting the air because they're not vehicles that 
are well kept, and they're not in the best of condition. So, 
this is a blatant reality that's a sad thing that we certainly 
have to deal with in low and moderate income areas. 

MS. PATRICK: Yes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What do you see as the role of 
the ARB in that regard? How can they be helpful to cutting down 
on this air pollution, because these are the people who will 
probably not be the great environmentalists. They are the 
people who are so concerned about bread and butter issues, the 
air quality is not the problem. It's just a dry day when they 
can drive to their job in their pickup trucks to get some 
employment or to provide transportation for their families. 

MS. PATRICK: As I mentioned in my opening 
statement, I was teacher for Bakersfield City Schools for 20 
years, so I'm well aware of the kinds of neighborhoods that you 
are speaking of. 

I think it's important that we be committed to 



I 



37 

all Californians and in every neighborhood. 

I that think one of things that will come out of 
this initiative by the South Coast is to find out if, indeed, 
there are scientific basis for this, and to come up with 
reasonable solutions that we can make sure that there is no 
neighborhood that had unjustly — that unjustly suffers because 
of this. 

SENATOR HUGHES: So, this is your commitment? 

MS. PATRICK: It certainly is one of my 
commitments, yes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Supervisor, like other things in 
life, sometimes there's trade-offs when you deal with pollution 
control strategies. 

One of the things we did recently was the usage 
of MTBE as an additive, and now there seems to be increasing 
concern about groundwater contamination. 

Do you have any thoughts you want to share with 
us about that controversy right now? 

MS. PATRICK: Certainly. 

I think MTBE is certainly an issue that's of 
concern to a lot of different folks. I think it's important to 
remember that the State of California was not the group that 
said we were going to use MTBE. But rather, they set a certain 
standard, and the oil refiners decided that in order to meet 
that standard, that they would use MTBE. 

It's an oxygenate, and oxygenates are required by 
the federal government. And ARB is supportive of legislation 



38 

by Senator Feinstein and I think it's Senator — Representative 
Bilbray who are dealing with asking the federal government if we 
can dispense with the use of oxygenates in California. 

Did I answer your question? 

SENATOR LEWIS: Yes, thank you. 

Any other questions from Members of the 
Committee? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Move approval. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Is there anyone in the audience 
wishing to testify in behalf of the nomination? Anyone in the 
audience wishing to testify in opposition or share concerns? 

We have a motion do pass. Please call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Congratulations. 

MS. PATRICK: Thank you. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee hearing was 

terminated at approximately 2:50 P.M.] 
— ooOoo — 



39 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 

, 1998. 



?-- day of ^"yy^^^t^^. 




:ZAK 
Shorthand Reporter 



347-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 347-R when ordering. 






ncpQSITORY ITEM 
' \.4ENTS DEPT. 

APR 24 1998 

NCISCO 
Pu'oUC LIBRARY 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

MONDAY, MARCH 16, 1998 
1:34 P.M. 



348-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



MONDAY, MARCH 16, 1998 
1:34 P.M. 



Reported by 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR JOHN BURTON, Chair 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS, Vice Chair 

SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 

SENATOR JAMES BRULTE 

SENATOR TERESA HUGHES 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

WADE TEASDALE, Consultant to SENATOR LEWIS 

FELICE TANENBAUM, Consultant to SENATOR HUGHES 

TOM ROSS, Consultant to SENATOR BRULTE 

ALSO PRESENT 

RANDOLPH L. CANDELARIA, Warden 
California State Prison, Wasco 

SENATOR JIM COSTA 

ROY MABRY, State President 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 

FRANK R. SEARCY, President 

Chicanco Correctional Workers Association 

ANTONIO C. AMADOR, Member 

Public Employment Relations Board 

SENATOR RICHARD POLANCO 

SALLY A. RAKOW, Member 
State Air Resources Board 

SENATOR HERSCHEL ROSENTHAL 

ROBERT H. TOURTELOT, Member 
California Horse Racing Board 



Ill 

INDEX 

Page 

Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees; 

RANDOLPH L. CANDELARIA, Warden 

California State Prison, Wasco 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Length of Stay for New Inmates 

at Reception Center 7 

Suggestions for Changes in Current 
Classification Process 7 

ADA Problems 8 

Drug Trafficking within Institution 9 

Warden's Awareness of Drugs in Facility 10 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Handling Overcrowding 10 

Policy to Handle Drug Trafficking 11 

Classification Level of Prisoners 12 

Arrival of New Prisoners without 

Records 12 

Implementation of New Grooming 

Standards 13 

Smoking Policy 14 

Support by SENATOR JIM COSTA 16 

Witnesses in Support: 

ROY MABRY, State President 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 18 

FRANK R. SEARCY, President 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 18 

Motion to Confirm 19 



IV 



Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Commitment to Protect Employee 

Witnesses Who Testify at Hearings 20 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Large Numbers of Prisoners with 

Parole Revocations 23 

Requests by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Types of Parole Violations 24 

Committee Action 25 

ANTONIO C. AMADOR, Member 

Public Employment Relations Board 25 

Introduction and Support by 

SENATOR RICHARD POLANCO 25 

Background and Experience 27 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

PERB's Experience with Charter Schools 28 

Recognition of Charter School Employees 28 

Position on Legislation to Include 

Charter School Employees in Act 28 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Board Position on Legislation 29 

Motion to Confirm 30 

Committee Action .30 

SALLY A. RAKOW, Member 

State Air Resources Board 30 

Introduction and Support by 

SENATOR HERSCHEL ROSENTHAL 31 

Background and Experience 31 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Suggestions for Speeding Process of 

Evaluating and Regulating Toxics 33 

Diesel Exhaust as Toxic Air 

Contaminant 35 



I 



Motion to Confirm 35 

Committee Action 36 

ROBERT H. TOURTELOT, Member 

California Horse Racing Board 36 

Background and Experience 37 

Letter of Support from Pari-Mutuel 

Employees Guild, Local 280 38 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Suggestions to Save Horse Racing 40 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Rumor of Santa Anita Phasing Out 42 

Motion to Confirm 43 

Committee Action .44 

Termination of Proceedings 44 

Certificate of Reporter 45 



P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— ooOoo — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Antonio Amador, member of the 
Public Employment Relations Board. Not here yet. 

Randolph Candelaria, Warden, Wasco State Prison. 
Do you want to come up, sir. They all like you down in the 
valley. 

. MR. CANDELARIA: Thank you, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What did you do to a guy up in 
Siskiyou County? Were you stationed up in Siskiyou at one time? 

MR. CANDELARIA: Never. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Go ahead, sir. 

MR. CANDELARIA: Good afternoon. Senators. My 
name is Randolph Lee Candelaria. I stand before you today with 
the hope that you'll confirm me as the Warden of Wasco State 
Prison Reception Center. 

I would like to share with you today a brief 
history of who I am and why I feel I merit your consideration. 
I also understand that you have a copy of my resume; therefore, 
I will only touch upon some of the highlights of my career. 

I'm a life-long 24-year-plus employee of the 
California Department of Corrections. I've spent approximately 
7 years at the California Institution of Men, from 1974 to 1981. 
I worked as a correctional officer and correctional sergeant. 
While there I worked all levels of custody, from maximum 
security to minimum. 

In 1980, I was fortunate to compete for the 
correctional lieutenant's exam. I was a very successful 



candidate. I was number one candidate in the State of ■ 
California/ with an overall cumulative score of 99 percent. 

I was promoted to the California Rehabilitation 
Center in March of 1981 as a correctional lieutenant. That 
started a little bit of the diversity of my training, where I 
was actually able to function at the Rehabilitation Center in a 
therapeutic civil addict environment. While there, I was the 
Training Administrator, Administrative Assistant to the Warden, 
Public Informations Officer to the Warden, Employee Relations 
Officer to the Warden, and the Training Administrator also. 

In 1983, I was once again promoted to 
Correctional Counselor II there at CRC, where I stayed until I 
was promoted to the Parole Division in April of 1984 to a Parole 
Agent II re-entry special agent. 

In 1985, I returned to the Institutions Division 
as a custody captain at CIW, the California Institution for 
Women in Frontera. At that time, the diversity of the prison 
was, it was the only women's prison at that time in California. 
We were about 400 percent above capacity. We had about 2700 
women in a facility that was built in the early '50s for 600 
women . 

In October, 1984, I returned to the Parole 
Division once again, promoting to Parole Agent III. I opened 
the office in Santa Fe Springs, now known as Santa Fe Springs I, 
II and III. 

In April of 1988, I was promoted to Parole 
Administrator. I was basically the territorial administrator of 
everything south of Orange County to Mexico, and everything from 



the Pacific Ocean to Arizona. 

In May jof 1992, I was promoted to Deputy Regional 
Administrator in Los Angeles. That was the day of the infamous 
Rodney King riots, May 1st of 1992. I stayed in Los Angeles for 
a period of four years, getting a diverse exposure to law 
enforcement and the parole function. I was there during the 
Rodney King trial. I was there during the Kum Pow trial, the 
Simpson trial, the earthquakes, and everything else that could 
go wrong in Los Angeles, I was there. 

In May of 1996, I was approached by the 
Department if I would think of going to Corcoran. I went home 
and talked to my wife about that. I think she could see the 
gleam in my eye, and she knew we were moving to Corcoran. I 
arrived at Corcoran July 1st of 1996. For a period of about 
four months, I was both the interim, acting, and Chief Deputy 
Warden until the new administrative team came in. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Were you there during a lot of 
the unpleasantness at Corcoran? 

MR. CANDELARIA: No, sir. I got there after the 
unpleasantness . 

It was still somewhat difficult running the 
prison, but the things that happened, happened earlier in '93, 
'94, prior to my arrival. 

Then in August of 1997, once again I was 
promoted. I was appointed by the Governor on August 14th to 
assume the command at Wasco State Prison Reception Center. I've 
been there about seven months. 

Along with this extensive 24-year experiences 



within the Department, I also recognized that I needed a good 
education, so I returned to the local junior college there in 
Rancho Cucamonga, Chaffey Junior College in 1974. I received an 
AA degree in 1976, then was accepted into a program at the 
University of Redlands, where I received a degree in 
Organizational Management. I also have a lifetime junior 
teaching credential, and I'm an adjunct professor at Porterville 
College. 

Keeping these career practicums and academic 
accomplishments in mind, I believe that now I should talk about 
management style. I look at myself as being a hands-on manager, 
and I have a belief with that kind of outlook towards your 
staff, they will follow you. 

My primary introduction to management supervision 
was taught by a cadre of drill instructors at Ford Ord, 
California, when I was 19 years old. I was also privileged to 
attend the Noncommissioned Officers Academy at Fort Benning, 
Georgia, the Military Command Leadership Academy at Harmony 
Church, Fort Benning, Georgia. 

I'm a Vietnam veteran. I was a noncommissioned 
officer and proudly served with the elite 101st Airborne 
Division in the Republic of South Vietnam. 

Because of my service to my country, I was 
awarded by order of the President the Combat Infantryman's Badge 
and a Bronze Star for gallantry and meritorious service against 
enemy forces of the United States of America. Also hanging on 
my wall next to my Bronze Star Certificate is a letter of 
appreciation signed by the President of the United States for my 



service to the country. 

Based on this, I've kind of always been a 
hands-on team concept supervisor, manager. I believe in 
involving my staff, the appropriate staff members. I believe in 
discussion. I believe including all specialized programs and 
specialized staff, and contacting departmental headquarters when 
necessary. 

I also accept a lot of input and information from 
my peer management group, and I dialogue with other wardens when 
needed. 

I make the best possible decisions I can, and 
prior to implementation, the most difficult decisions of running 
a prison, I contact supervisors, and share, and review, and seek 
their consultation. 

I believe strongly in empowering my staff and 
delegating authority to them so they can complete their 
respective tasks. 

I firmly believe in holding people accountable. 
I have laid the primary foundation for these actions the staff 
need to take, and that the management of Wasco Prison can truly 
appreciate. I believe in effective and good communications. 
It's my belief that communications is the basis of all 
orientations, so I meet personally with every new group of staff 
members at Wasco for the orientation process, where I set the 
groundwork for a good custody, good security, good safety. And 
a real highlight now being emphasized by all of us is 
communication with our staff and the inmate population. 

I have ongoing meetings with my staff. I meet 



early morning, late at night, during the middle of the day. 
It's important that I get feedback on my performance, because 
that's where I will take the prison in the direction, the needs 
[sic] and it needs to take, is the needs I learn from these 
ongoing discussions with my staff. "Come follow me," is the 
message I send out to my staff. 

I've basically worn all the shoes, from 
correctional officer to warden. I've been given the opportunity 
to follow, and this truly has enhanced my ability to lead. 

I do not have to tell my staff who I am. They 
know by the example that I set. I am the Warden, and I'll make 
every effort to provide a safe, clean, working environment for 
them. 

In closing, I kind of wrote this to share with 
you who Randolph Lee Candelaria is and what I stand for. It's 
important that I think this prestigious Senatorial Committee 
should know about me without looking at a resume that says I'm 
like a lot of people, and yet uniquely different by this 
presentation. 

On a final note, I think it's important I 
recognize the people that get a person to this chair. That 
would start with my wife. Rose, of course, and then our four 
adult children, and my grandson, and with me today are my 
parents. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why don't they all stand. 
[Applause. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any questions from Members of 
the Committee? 



I guess I have a couple brief ones. When 
somebody comes into the Reception Center, how long does it take 
to send them where they should be? 

MR. CANDELARIA: Ideally, we're on a 30-day 
process. From the day they get to us from one of 11 counties we 
serve, within 30 days, the best case scenario is, they're on the 
road to — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How are you doing on the best 
case scenario? 

MR. CANDELARIA: We're in real good shape. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Pretty good shape? 

MR. CANDELARIA: I'm at about 42 days, if I took 
across the norm of all. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In other words, 30 days is what 
it should take to do it right? 

MR. CANDELARIA: Yeah, best case scenario, if you 
get a local guy from a local county, you can pick up everything 
you need. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any changes that 
you would recommend to the Director, on changes in the current 
classification process? Do you think it's pretty good, or do 
you see stuff that you think should change and you suggest 
that? 

MR. CANDELARIA: Well, I have two-fold, because I 
have a Reception Center. About 4500 of my population are 
transients; they're in route. So, as far as that initial 
classification, I think it works real well. It's a study. It's 
a science that some of us have been involved in for about 25 



8 

years, and that works real well. 

I also have about 1400 general population inmates 
who do the work at my prison, and the classification level for 
them is the Level III. So, the system does work, but with 
positive behavior and time in custody, the classification system 
as practiced, we do a lot of classification in my prison. I'm 
looking at reducing the custody, therefore reducing costs. 

On just the opposite, for negative behavior, it 
can raise the custody, and they can go to a Level IV facility. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What are you doing to solve the 
ADA problem, disabilities? 

MR. CANDELARIA: Once again, being a Reception 
Center, I have some ADAs . I'm set to handle the visually 
impaired, the hearing impaired, mobility. Most of those are 
Reception Center cases. At this time I've got four hearing 
impaired in my Reception Center. I have nine wheelchaired 
gentlemen that are being processed. We're not geared for 
wheelchair, so routinely we can send those over to North Kern, 
but because of the overcrowding at some of the prisons, I'm 
feeling that we're handling those. 

We move them along. Basically my GP, my general 
population yard is a work yard, so I can have some people that 
are hearing impaired or vision impaired, and we put them in a 
yellow little jumpsuit so that my staff know this. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I was thinking more mobility 
impaired. 

MR. CANDELARIA: At my prison, very little, sir, 
because of fact of what my mission is. 



I 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about the effectiveness of 
steps taken to reduce drug trafficking within the institution? 

MR. CANDELARIA: We do a masterful job. Since 
I've been there, since got there in August, we've made four 
very, very serious drug arrests of staff members. I have an 
Investigative Service Unit. That's basically what their job is. 

We track visitors. We monitor phones. We censor 
some mail to the degree the federal government allows us to. 
We've got a real good drug case there where we arrest a lot of 
people. 

Wonderful, wonderful relationship with district 
attorney so that if we pursue it, they prosecute. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You said you had four busts of 
institutional staff? 

MR. CANDELARIA: Very significant. One 
Correctional Counselor II — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What were they? Guards? Cooks? 

MR. CANDELARIA: No, all levels. As a matter of 
fact, one was a supervising counselor involved in some drug 
problems in the community. Based on her involvement with her 
husband, we terminated that employee, and she's at the SPB now, 
appealing my decision. 

One was a medical tech, falsely entering 
medication that he was giving somebody and taking himself. I 
have him on administrative leave now. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, they seem like people 
that are screwing up themselves. 

How about people that are dealing or providing 



10 

drugs to the inmates? 

MR. CANDELARIA: I have one lady that I'm 
looking at now. I just put her off grounds on administrative 
leave. I will terminate her. I had her arrested. She is 
currently in the Kern County Jail. Her family's very upset with 
her and unwilling to assist her. 

But as far as anything else, no, not for sale or 
for involvement with inmates. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, there's not much drug 
trafficking within the institution? 

MR. CANDELARIA: Not that I'm aware of. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Would you be aware of it if it 
was happening, by and large? 

MR. CANDELARIA: I'd better be. I have a lot of 
staff there. We're manned 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with 
supervisors and managers. And we're all within driving distance 
back to the prison, and we're always in communication on things 
like that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No further questions. 

SENATOR AYALA: I have a question. 

Mr. Candelaria, the Wasco State Prison designed 
for 2, 984 beds. 

MR. CANDELARIA: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR AYALA: Currently you have 5600 people in 
that prison. 

MR. CANDELARIA: This morning I had — 

SENATOR AYALA: That's 186 percent over capacity. 
How do you handle that? 



11 

MR. CANDELARIA: This morning I had 5,729 
inmates. As of this morning, I have 5,729 inmates. I'm at 188 
percent of my design capacity. 

SENATOR AYALA: How do you handle that 
overcrowding condition? 

MR. CANDELARIA: Very gingerly. It's important 
that my staff be safety conscious. It's important that my staff 
follow the protocol and move those men out as quickly as 
possible and safely as possible. 

SENATOR AYALA: The Chairman mentioned to you the 
drug problem that exists in our prisons, which I know you can't 
stop it completely, but you mentioned earlier what you were- 
doing to handle it. 

What is the policy you have there to handle these 
drug trafficking to the prisons? 

MR. CANDELARIA: The key to dealing with drug 
interdiction with staff is a good professional code of peace 
officer standards, where we monitor each other, we watch each 
other, we communicate. It's very important. 

I have a very small cadre of what we call 
Investigative Service Unit. That's primarily their job, is, 
they're the law enforcement arm for me inside the prison. So, 
we do the monitoring of mail, visiting, communication on 
telephones, those kind of things. 

I don't know. Senator, if Wasco's used dogs 
before, but they haven't since I've been there, and I've been 
there seven months. 

SENATOR AYALA: What classification of prisoner 



12 

do you have at Wasco? 

MR. CANDELARIA: I have a Reception Center. 
About 4500 inmates are Reception Center. They're in-and-outs. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'm asking if they're level I, 
II, III, or IV? 

MR. CANDELARIA: No, the Reception Center can be 
anything. 

SENATOR AYALA: That's everything. 

MR. CANDELARIA: We don't know — 

SENATOR AYALA: They just go to the Reception 
Center, and from there you direct them to other prisons? 

MR. CANDELARIA: Yes. I also have a Level III 
general population. 

SENATOR AYALA: You keep them there for 30 days? 

MR. CANDELARIA: They should be processed in and 
out in about 30 days. 

SENATOR AYALA: Do many inmates arrive at your 
prison without his jacket of records? 

MR. CANDELARIA: They arrive with nothing, sir. 
They're brand-new commitments routinely. They're coming from 
the county jails, basically, with the minute orders that the 
judge sentenced them. 

It's my staff's responsibility to put that file 
together and get the paper process going. 

SENATOR AYALA: That's what happened at one point 
in the Chino prison, where the gentleman arrived — I call him a 
gentleman for lack of a better term — arrived without his 
jacket. They put him out in the — 






13 

MR. CANDELARIA: Yes, sir. I was working at 
Chino at the time. 

SENATOR AYALA: He escaped and murdered some 
people. So now it was Senator Presley that insisted that before 
you folks receive anyone, that the records be accompanying that 
individual that comes into your prison. 

The new grooming standards. Have you started 
that at your prison? 

MR. CANDELARIA: Yes, Senator, very 
successfully. My prison implemented on January 1st the Level I 
inmates, which are the minimum support facility inmates. 

I actually have an academic program where I was 
able to make a video, and on the TV program I was able to direct 
what was happening to my inmate population, what my expectations 
would be, and how we'd go about that. 

So, on January 1st of this year, we were in 
compliance 100 percent on the Level I. 

On March 1st, we were moving them right along 
with the Level III general populations. And as of last 
Wednesday morning, there were about 200 inmates who were still 
kind of recalcitrant, but we've moving along. 

We also did the Locks of Love Program. We found 
an organization in Florida, so the gentlemen that have the 
longer hair, the braided hair, that hair is being donated for 
children for wigs that they make for children undertaking 
chemotherapy, cancer, leukemia, et cetera. So, that's been 
very positive for my staff and my inmate population. 

SENATOR AYALA: How long have you been 



14 

implementing that program, since the first of the year? 

MR. CANDELARIA: The first of the year for the 
Level Is. 

SENATOR AYTUJ^: Any problems at all with that? 

MR. CANDELARIA: None whatsoever, sir. 

SENATOR AYALA: How about the smoking problem? 

MR. CANDELARIA: That's no problem either, 
because I implemented the law. As soon as I got there, I 
reissued the departmental policy on smoking to staff and 
inmates. We have no smoking problems at Wasco State Prison, 

I've also volunteered to become a smoke-free 
prison if that's what they'd like for us to do, because we have 
policies where the inmates and staff do not smoke inside 
buildings. My staff do not smoke in state cars, et cetera. And 
we have an agreed-upon area of five feet from any door where 
staff members can smoke outside. 

The inmates don't smoke in any buildings. The 
only approved area is the recreation yard area only. 

SENATOR AYALA: Do they take their tobacco and 
matches into the cells? 

MR. CANDELARIA: Yeah, yeah. Not matches. They 
buy little Bic lighters from our canteen. 

SENATOR AYALA: Are you afraid they might set 
their mattress on fire and that sort of thing, like they do in 
other prisons? 

MR. CANDELARIA: They could, sir, most 
definitely, but we have not had that problem at Wasco. 

SENATOR AYALA: How are you going to stop them 



15 

unless you don't sell the material out in the store and so 
forth? 

MR. CANDELARIA: That's where I'd like to go with 
it. As a matter of fact, I'm looking into a product now where 
they have electric strikers, and some of the institutions are 
putting them on the yard, where you eliminate matches and the 
little flick of the Bic type things. 

SENATOR AYALA: If you allow them to take their 
tobacco and their matches, or whatever, into their cells, 
they're going to light up when they get the urge. If you write 
them up, big deal. So what. 

What happens when you write them up? 

MR. CANDELARIA: The thing with running a prison 
is, if you establish policy and procedure and adhere to it, 
there is a disciplinary process. And if they violate that 
process, it's a negative behavior. We deal with it on a 
progressive manner. 

Some inmates, because of their behavior, don't 
want to stay at Wasco. We can raise their custody as well as 
lower it. 

So, that has not been a problem, sir. 

SENATOR AYALA: But the no smoking policy is not 
giving you any problems? 

MR. CANDELARIA: No. 

SENATOR AYALA: Eventually it'll be no smoking, 
period, as some county jails already have that without any 
problems at all. 

MR. CANDELARIA: Not at all. That's what I'm 



16 

looking at now, as a matter of fact. I would like to look at 
maintaining my Reception Center as a completely smoke-free 
environment . 

You're right, sir. Many of the county jails have 
gone to smoke-free. So, they. don't smoke in the county jail. 
They get to my prison or any Reception Center and start lighting 
up again. I'd like to take that challenge on. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Costa, then people in 
support who can just show up and testify to his qualifications 
so we can confirm the Warden. 

SENATOR COSTA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman 
and Members of the Senate Rules Committee. 

Very briefly, I've worked with this individual 
for a number of months since he was moved to the Wasco 
facility. Obviously, he has a career that is before you that, I 
think, clearly demonstrates his ability to perform to the degree 
we would all like to see our wardens perform in the various 
correctional facilities throughout the state. 

But in an ever-changing world, I believe Ron has 
the abilities to make the sort of transformations that I've just 
heard discussed by Senator Ayala and others of you. 

The point Senator Ayala raises in a Reception 
Center such as Wasco is a good one. The courts send these wards 
from throughout the state, and I have personally visited the 
records department of the Wasco facility and looked and the 
difficulty of the lack of information coming from the courts as 
to whether or not these various inmates are at the various 



17 

• 

levels, whether or not they have substance abuse problems, 
whether or not they belong to gangs, whether or not they have 
other problems that might determine where, in fact, they ought 
to be assigned. 

So, Senator Ayala, I'm glad you raised that 
particular point. It's a difficult challenge, and one that they 
are attempting to address in Wasco. 

I would also add one other point. I don't know 
if it was raised prior to my coming here. The Wasco facility 
and this Warden are attempting to try to assist local school 
districts. Just last fall, we presented over, I believe it was 
40 computers to the Allensworth School District. This is a 
small little rural school district that had no computers prior 
to this. They refurbished these computers that are donated to 
them, and this facility with this Warden's effort, attempts to 
try to provide those much needed computers to local schools for 
the benefit of those children. 

That's just but one way. There is a program that 
we are going to work on for Christmas that will provide gifts 
for children that otherwise wouldn't have anything under their 
tree. 

I only mention that because when you have eight 
facilities in your district, such as I do, the relationship 
between these facilities and the communities is important. This 
is a gentleman who is cognizant of that fact. 

I would urge you to confirm his appointment to 
the Warden of the Wasco State facility. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, Senator. 



18 

People in support, name and organization, please. 

MR. MABRY: Good afternoon, Chairman Burton, 
Rules Committee Members. 

My name is Roy Mabry, State President, 
Association of Black Correctional Workers. I'm here today 
representing our membership in 199 percent support for 
confirmation for Mr. Candelaria as Warden at Wasco State 
Prison. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, sir. Next. 

MR. SEARCY: Good afternoon. Senator and 
Committee Members. 

I am Frank R. Searcy, President of the Chicano 
Correctional Workers Association. 

And I think we are going to have beat ABCW. 
We're like 300 percent behind Mr. Candelaria. 

Gentleman and Ms. Hughes, you have heard 
Mr. Candelaria 's work experience, his career in Corrections. 

I don't think there's anything that I could add 
to that. However, as I thought, there is. I'd like to 
highlight this for you. 

I think one of the things that is unique in 
Mr. Candelaria 's work experience in Corrections is that he 
started out as a correctional officer. He went up through the 
ranks. He gained valuable, valuable experience as he moved 
along. Now he is at the level of the Warden. 

But if that was not enough, he then also went out 
into the Paroles Division, which is another almost career field, 
and he obtained some more valuable experience there. 



19 

So, if he would be working as a Warden, he also 
then has valuable experience in how to deal with, if there is 
ever a situation where he has to deal with parolees or with the 
Parole Division. 

So again, I think that Mr. Candelaria is very, 
very well qualified and has the experience that is needed in 
order to be able to administer that institution. 

So again, we ask you to endorse him as Warden at 
Wasco State Prison. Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is there any opposition. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Move. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Hearing none, moved by Senator 
Lewis. Call the roll. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I'd just like to ask the witness 
one short question. I know you missed me last week, but I'm 
back. 

And that is, we've had extensive conversation 
with Mr. Terhune in his confirmation process. So, I would like 
to pose to you a question that I posed to him before, and you've 
had wonderful witnesses to come and support your confirmation. 
This is one of the questions that I had asked him that I'd like 
to ask you. 

He has the major responsibility, because he's not 
only responsible for one institution, as you are, he's 
responsible for all of them. 

And the tough question that I asked him was, what 
is he going to do about ensuring that there is no retaliation to 
any employee of yours who might come before this group, or 



20 

before any other group, giving their points of view as to how 
they see the system in their respective institution, and making 
certain that no employee faces a harsh retaliation for any 
testimony that they have given before you or before your 
superiors? 

What kinds of things are you committed to put in 
place, or to keep in place, if you are already serving in that 
capacity, in the future so that employees won't be reluctant to 
tell the truth as they see it, and to feel secure enough to know 
that they will not be retaliated? 

MR. CANDELARIA: I think it's important that, as 
a warden, you have a trained cadre of staff in the sexual 
harassment arena, the employee opportunities arena. So, if 
somebody feels offended or slighted, there is an avenue for them 
to redress those concerns. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I'm not just talking about 
sexual harassment. I'm talking about personal harassment, 
because someone might come and say that their superior did this 
or that and the other, and then they get angry. 

Sexual harassment is just one of the harassments 
that people feel. 

CHAIRMT^ BURTON: The issue was where two 
officers who testified in opposition to Mr. Terhune. And when 
they got back to their assignments, they were getting a little 
roused about it. And it had nothing to do with Mr. Terhune, but 
it happened. 

The thing that Senator Hughes wants to make 
clear, and I think all us, is that if somebody comes up here and 



21 

• 

testifies as they see fit on a matter, that they don't get back 
and end up suffering for it on the job. I think that was the 
issue she was raising. 

MR. CANDELARIA: I'm sorry, I really am not 
gifted enough to speak about the issue with the Director, but I 
ami gifted enough to speak about what goes on in my prison. 

I think the key to that is having a warden and an 
administrative staff that's approachable. If that does happen, 
should that happen, in all likelihood, it should get back to me 
and I can address that issue. 

At this time, I don't have any examples that I 
could use, other than that I firmly believe that there should be 
an open-door policy. For we're a paramilitary organization, so 
there has to be a structure. 

So, will you have disgruntled employees, or 
employees that feel they weren't treated properly? Perhaps. 

It's my job to entertain and to get to the bottom 
of the fact. If there's truth to it, then it's my job to make 
sure it doesn't happen. 

SENATOR HUGHES: And they can feel secure? 

MR. CANDELARIA: I would think so. 

SENATOR HUGHES: That you're going to see that 
they still have the option to speak to you, or to your superior, 
or even to the Legislature, and not be felt that they're going 
to be chastised for it in any way? 

That's what I mean. Not sexual harassment. Now, 
sexual harassment, that's another big issue. But this is just 
personal harassment. 



22 

MR. CANDEL7VRIA: Well, like I say, the only thing 
I can do as the Warden is attest to the fact we have ongoing 
communication. But we are a paramilitary organization. 

We do have disgruntled employees at times, and 
it's my job to get to the bottom of that and find out what the 
truth is. 

Can I please all 1400 employees every day? 
Probably not. Will I stop them from coming to talk in front of 
this prestigious committee? Never. Will I like what they say? 
I hope so. 

But I've got a prison to run, and the key to 
running that prison is being fair and consistent, not only in 
what I do, but what my managers do when I'm away from the 
prison. That's my success. When I get there, that I can take a 
day off or a week off, because that's how we live as a warden. 
We are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We may be 
away, but we have the pagers now and cellular telephones. 

So, my belief and my wish is that my staff live 
and breathe what I preach, and that's treating people with 
respect and dignity and fairness. 

Being popular and being liked by everybody is 
something I would really like, but it's probably not real 
practical as a prison warden today. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Just a short question. 

I see that you have experience in the Parole 
Division. 



23 

MR. CANDELARIA: Yes, sir, about ten years. 

SENATOR AYALA: As you well know, almost 80 
percent of all the inmates in state prison are inmates who have 
had their parole revocated. 

MR. CANDELARIA; Yes, sir. 

SENATOR AYALA: We must be doing something wrong. 
If it wasn't for all these people in prison who have come back 
because of violation of their parole, we wouldn't need any more 
prisons. 

What do you see wrong with our Parole Division, 
if at all? We must be doing something wrong, because we have 
the largest percentage of people coming back to prison because 
of parole violation in the country, in the nation. 

MR. CANDELARIA: Well, Senator, in fairness to 
the Parole Division, I've been away from them for about two 
years. 

But I would like to think just the opposite, sir, 
that we're doing something very well. 

This prestigious house makes laws and rules that 
we at the Department of Corrections must adhere to. There are 
technical violations, there are direct go-to- jail violations 
that the parole agent or the correctional officer, we have 
nothing to do with. They are Penal Code sections. 

So, the revocation process is in itself very 
high, of course. In my prison, about 45 percent of my intake is 
parole violators. But we have a system that says, you commit 
these crimes, you go to jail. If you commit these violations, 
you're returned. 



24 

I would not attest to being an expert on 
revocation by any stretch of the imagination, sir. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

I move his confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Now you got me. I'd like to 
sometime be privy to a conversation with you and Senator Costa 
about the work you've done for the schools there. It seemed to 
be rather interesting. 

Could you get us, if 45 percent of the people 
that come in are violations, could you get this Committee — and 
I think Mike Neal or the Director, somebody, once was going to 
get something to us that we haven't gotten — but what are those 
violations? 

Are they like missing an appointment? Are they 
peeing dirty in a bottle? Are they in effect committing an 
offense? 

I assume that information is available. 

MR. CANDELARIA: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Could you get that to us? Of 
that 45 percent, which ones are the various types? What the 
violations are, so we can see whether some of what's being done 
makes much sense. 

Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 
• SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 



25 

• 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The roll will remain open for 
Senator Brulte. 

[Thereafter, SENATOR BRULTE 
added his Aye vote, making the 
final vote 5-0 for confirmation.] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you and congratulations, 
sir. 

MR. CANDELARIA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Antonio Amador, Public 
Employment Relations Board, accompanied by the distinguished 
majority leader. Senator Richard Polanco. 

SENATOR POLANCO: Mr. Chairman, if I may very 
briefly present Tony, as we know him. 

Very briefly, he brings both the management 
experience as well as the labor experience. I met Tony years 
and years ago. He served for twelve-and-a-half years in the 
capacity as President and Board Member of the L.A. Police 
Protective League. He was then well distinguished, having 
negotiated the first contract with the city for five years. 

He was involved in sponsoring what is referred to 
as the Police Officers' Bill of Rights. 

He has served under both Republican and 
Democratic administration. As you see his resume, having served 



26 

for seven years as a member and the vice chairman of the U.S. 
Merit System Protective Board under presidential appointment by 
then-President Bush. He served in California as the Deputy 
Director of the Employment Development Department under the 
Deukmejian administration. But he first got his start. Members, 
under the Jerry Brown administration, when he served as Director 
of California Youth Authority, served as the Chairman also of 
the Youthful Offender Parole Board and the Narcotic Evaluation 
Authority. 

I am a personal friend as well as a professional 
friend. He's delivered at least 32 years of services. And 
Senator Ayala, I know that he meets your criteria with regards 
to the commitment of service to people without the political 
ideologies or all the other vices that take place. 

I'm proud to introduce my friend Tony to this 
distinguished Board in hopes of his confirmation and urging your 
confirmation of his candidacy. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I just have one question. 
You're Antonio, right. 

MR. AMADOR: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How come you can be called 
Tony, but Speaker Villaraigosa cannot be called Tony? 

SENATOR POLANCO: It's a generational thing, 
Senator. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Maybe you could counsel the 
young fella, you want to get a rise out of him. Go ahead, 
please. 



27 

MR. AMADOR: I won't take a lot of your time. 
I'd rather to use the time for your questions, if you have any. 

Very briefly, I've got various experience in 
labor and management, both sides of the issue. I feel like I'm 
well qualified for the position. 

What I did at the Merit Systems Protection Board 
in Washington, D.C. was actually adjudicate personnel actions. 
It used to be called the old Civil Service Commission. In 1978, 
President Carter changed that • to the Merit Systems Protection 
Board because the Civil Service Commission used to make and also 
adjudicate the actions. So, they had the Office of Personnel 
Management become the rule makers, and MSPB became the 
adjudicators. We were the last level of review for federal 
employees before they went to District Court of Appeal. 

We handled about 1700 cases per year, and we were 
upheld about 95 percent of all of our cases. 

I have gone — it wasn't mentioned by the 
Senator — I am a graduate of McGeorge Law School. 

I might add that I think that my years of 
experience has qualified me for this position today. Senators. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How are you doing with Frank 
Grimes? 

MR. AMADOR: Frank Grimes is a good friend of 
mine. He was on the same board. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Good enough. Is he enjoying 
retirement? 

MR. AMADOR: I don't think he's quite retired, 
the way he's running around. 



28 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: He's working for Gray Davis. 

Questions, Members of the Committee? Senator 
Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I'm just curious, Mr. Amador. 
What has been PERB's experience with charter schools to date? 
Do you have any background on that? 

MR. AMADOR: As far as a policy issue as far as 
where we stand on charter schools, the Board itself does not 
take positions. We are not going to legislate from our 
positions as Board members. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Because you have exempted 
yourselves from dealing with them, is this what it is? 

MR. AMADOR: I think our jurisdiction is what the 
Legislature — 

SENATOR HUGHES: They are exempt from the 
Education Employment Relations Act. 

MR. AMADOR: Right. 

SENATOR HUGHES: For charter schools who have 
exempted themselves from the district's bargaining agreement, 
how can the employees organize themselves, and can these 
employees be recognized by PERB? 

MR. AMADOR: Only if those employees are able to 
pass legislation to include themselves in the Act can we 
adjudicate any of their differences. 

SENATOR HUGHES: If such legislation were 
proposed, would you be supportive of it as an individual? 

MR. AMADOR: I would absolutely follow the law. 
Senator Hughes. 



29 

SENATOR HUGHES: You would follow the law. 
Whatever we do, you would support us? That's bad news. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They're not changing the law. 

MR. AMADOR: We are not going to change any laws. 
We are not going to be an activist in any way on that issue. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What, if any, potential problems 
would you see in protecting the rights and the benefits of 
school employees under the charter school law? 

This is just for informational purposes, because 
I know — . 

MR. AMADOR: Senator Hughes — I said Teresa. I 
remember you as Assemblywoman when we supported you at the 
Police Protective League many years ago. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I was Teresa, and I'm still 
Teresa, but you may call me Senator. 

MR. AMADOR: Yes, but you're Senator Hughes here. 

Senator Hughes, I am not going to give any 
positions or my own personal opinions about charter schools at 
all. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you very much. 

MR. AMADOR: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Just one quick. 

So, any bill that comes up that would deal with 
expanding or, I guess, retracting authority of the Board, the 
Board never shows up to talk about legislation? 

MR. AMADOR: The Board does not take positions on 
legislation, 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Even if it affects them? 



30 

MR. AMADOR: If it affects the Board directly, as 
to this point/ we do not take positions on legislation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Good for them. 

Any other questions? 

Anybody want to register their name in support? 

SENATOR HUGHES: Move. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any opposition? 

Moved by Senator Hughes. Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Roll will be open for Senator 
Brulte. 

[Thereafter, SENATOR BRULTE 
added his Aye vote, making the 
final vote 5-0 for confirmation.] 

MR. AMADOR: Thank you. Senator. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Sally Rakow, what are you 
doing? I almost tried to hire her 25 years ago. 

MS. RAKOW: You remember. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Oh, yes. 



31 

SENATOR ROSENTHAL: I'm pleased to introduce to 
you Sally Rakow. 

I worked with Sally for many years, beginning 
with my Chairmanship of the Energy and Public Utilities 
Committee when she was on the Energy Commission. 

She has a strong grasp of issues, did her 
homework, gave fair consideration to many points of view. She 
also developed a close, cooperative working relationship with 
the Legislature, which pleased me very much. 

Her six years of experience with the Energy 
Commission was excellent preparation for appointment to the Air 
Resources Board, and I believe she deserves your favorable 
consideration. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Go ahead, Sally. 

MS. RAKOW: Thank you. Senator Rosenthal, for 
those very generous words. 

You'll have to excuse me. I have a bit of 
laryngitis. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Be very brief then and submit 
it for the record. 

MS. RAKOW: I am very happy to have the 
opportunity to reintroduce myself to you, as the Committee 
membership has changed since I was last before you. 

I am a fourth generation Calif ornian, raised in 
Marin County, where I still live. After teaching elementary 
school and being very active in a variety of citizens' education 
groups, I took the big step and served eight years as a school 
board member. In that role, in addition to my local 



32 

responsibilities, I did have the opportunity to broaden my 
perspective and work on some statewide issues. 

As a native Californian, I have seen the 
tremendous growth in the Bay Area and the state as whole. I 
have a first-hand understanding of the impacts, environmental 
and economic, that we must continually address. 

The policy making function of the Air Resources 
Board is not really a new role for me. Most of my professional 
and civic experience, most recently with the California Energy 
Commission, has required that I work with advocates from a 
divergent group of constituents with often very competing 
interests. And throughout my career, I have had the pleasure of 
working with decision makers at all levels in order to formulate 
policy. 

I was very pleased when Governor Wilson appointed 
me to the Air Resources Board, as air quality and energy do go 
hand in hand. I find that my recent role as the Energy 
Commission Vice Chair, and a very brief stint as acting Chair, 
gave me a unique advantage of seeing some of the same issues 
from two different angles. 

ARB's strategic plan calls for reducing air 
toxics and achieving healthful air for all Californians with a 
partnership approach. To me, that's very important. And this 
means a broad-based collaborative effort to develop pollution 
reducing strategies. 

To help put these words into action, last 
November I initiated a joint meeting with the ARB and the CEC 
Chairmen, Board Members, and staff from each agency. My focus 



33 

was to explore areas of mutual partnership, transportation 
policies being among a priority issue, also, the mutual 
challenge of power plant air quality management in a deregulated 
world. So, I look forward to having these dialogues continue. 

ARB's agenda, as I mentioned, and commitment is 
to achieve air in a flexible — clean air in a flexible, cost 
effective manner. It's a very complicated multi-dimensional 
issue with difficult choices. 

Should you confirm my appointment, I will 
guarantee that I will make sure that the table is big enough to 
seat everybody who is interested in sitting there. 

Thank you. If you have any questions, I'd be 
glad to answer them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Questions from Members of the 
Committee? 

Why didn't you take the job when I offered it? 

Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you very much for being 
with us this afternoon. 

I was just a little bit curious and wondering, 
based on your tremendous experience and interest in this area, 
if you have any suggestions that you could offer for speeding 
the process of evaluating and regulating toxic compounds? 

MS. RAKOW: The ARE goes through this 
identification process that is based on very, very solid 
scientific-math data. I, always being a skeptic, always look at 
government as, oh my, why are we taking such a long time to do 
this or that. 



34 

However, I have found that the data is so 
complicated and the science is so refined that it needs time to 
organize it, to analyze it, to put it out to the public. And the 
ARB spends a great deal of time bringing the public in and 
responding to the information that we've gathered. 

So, I think, for instance, the time spent is 
quite worthwhile. When I see a couple of years have gone by, 
then I realize that it's gone out to two different scientific 
draft committees and has come back for the third. 

And also there is by law, or regulatory statute, 
I guess, there's a certain time period that information must be 
out there for responses to come in. 

So, I think sometimes the staff works — I know 
all the time the staff works very hard, but sometimes it moves 
very fast. 

The rice burning straw issue. Senator Thompson 
put in a bill last year to appropriate some money. Within a few 
months, the program was developed. People were brought in, 
stakeholders were brought in, and the workshops. The program 
was approved by the Board, and now the demonstration grants are 
out to the public. That all took place in about six months, so 
that was good. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What was done differently in 
that case than is done in other cases? How was the process 
speeded up? 

MS. RAKOW: Well, I think that the rice straw 
burning issue did not need a lot of scientific backgrounds. It 
was there already. 



35 

The legislation that had phased in the rice straw 
burning was already in place. This was an adjunct. This was to 
put demonstration projects for commercial use of the rice straw. 

SENATOR HUGHES: One last question, because I 
really feel guilty for straining your voice, but my curiosity 
demands that I ask these questions. 

What do you think that issue of diesel exhaust as 
a toxic air contaminant? When will this come before your Board? 

MS. RAKOW: That is — that was the issue that I 
was thinking had gone out to two scientific studies. 

Right now, or very shortly this spring, the 
scientific review panel will be doing their analysis. Then 
they will make the recommendation to the Board. 

I believe it's going to come this fall at some 
point. And Senator, you understand that this is an 
identification phase, and that is what the Board will be — I'm 
speculating, but the Board will be acting one way or another on 
the identification phase. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you very much. 

MS. RAKOW: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any other questions? 

SENATOR HUGHES: I'd like to move. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Moved by Senator Hughes. Call 



the roll. 



Support and opposition? 
SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 
SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. 



36 



SECRETARY WEBB 
SENATOR HUGHES 
SECRETARY WEBB 



Senator Hughes. 

Aye. 

Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 
SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations, Sally. 
MS. RAKOW: Thank you. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Leave the roll open for Senator 



Brulte. 



[Thereafter, SENATOR BRULTE 
added his Aye vote, making the 
final vote 5-0 for confirmation.] 

SENATOR LEWIS: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of 
Senator Brulte, I've been asked to make a brief announcement 
that he'll be back shortly, but that this will be his last 
meeting on the Rules Committee. He's been appointed Caucus 
Chairman of the Senate Republicans. So, he'll be tendering his 
resignation from this Committee. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Robert Tourtelot, California 
Horse Racing Board. 

MR. TOURTELOT: Good afternoon. Senators. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Good afternoon, sir. 

MR. TOURTELOT: Senator Burton, I don't have a 
prepared speech, but there's a couple words that I'd like to 
share with all of you. 

When I appeared before this Committee four years 



37 

ago, I knew relatively little about horse racing. I think the 
Governor's thought was to appoint somebody who was not tied to 
one part of the industry or the other. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Appoint someone who didn't know 
anything? 

MR. TOURTELOT: In any event, you'll see my 
point. I was scared to death that somebody, some Senator, was 
going to ask me some really tough questions about medication or 
other things. And fortunately they didn't. 

Now, four years has passed, and I've spent a lot 
of time outside of the Board meetings, learning about the 
industry. In four years and four months, I haven't missed one 
monthly meeting, notwithstanding the fact they're all over the 
state. We have a different location every month. 

I chaired the Simulcast Committee, which was a 
very important committee because of satellites, working oh 
improving our satellite facilities throughout the state. 

As you may know, the horse racing industry, just 
from the tracks alone and the satellites, brings about $100 
million in revenue to the state. I think there's a lot more 
revenue than that when you take into consideration the off-track 
activities. 

The revenue is declining. Our fan base is 
declining. A lot of people have said, and I've said, that 
there's probably too much gray hair at the track, not enough 
younger people. I've been very interested in working on 
marketing and seeing that we try to increase our fan base. 

I might say that other committees that I headed 



38 

were the Bylaws Committee and the Pari-Mutuel Committee. After 
four years, I think that I know a lot more than I did when I 
first came to the Board. 

You'd always like to think you might get a report 
card at the end of four years, when you're dealing so many 
different factions: the associations, which are the tracks; the 
trainers; the owners; and labor. Being a Republican appointee, 
I think I'm very proud of the report card that I did get. 
Senator, I received a copy of a letter Friday that was sent by 
labor to you. I don't know if the Committee Members have read 
it. If they haven't, it's not that long. I'd like to read it 
for the record, and I think that's my report card for my four 
years. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Surely. 

MR. TOURTELOT: Thank you. 

This is from the Pari-Mutuel Employees Guild, 
which is Local 280, which is the labor, organized labor for the 
horse racing tracks. It's re: reappointment of Robert 
Tourtelot to CHRB. 

"Dear Chairman Burton: 

"I was planning to attend the confirmation 
hearing of Robert Tourtelot to the California Horse Racing Board 
on March 16th, 1998. I will not be able to attend and that is 
the reason you are getting this letter. This letter being sent 
on behalf of the four paid officers of SEIU Pari-Mutuel Clerks 
Local 280. I feel honored that I was asked by the others to 
sends this letter. 

"I'm speaking in support of Robert Tourtelot to 



I 



39 

be granted another four year term as Coiximissioner to the 
California Horse Racing Board. 

"I'm confident others will address issues of 
character, trust/ honor, integrity, all of the highest ethical 
standard." As you can see, there's no one here. 

"Robert Tourtelot is exemplary of the standard we 
all desire to have as our representative from California and our 
horse racing industry. 

"Robert Tourtelot has spent many donated hours 
learning about all segments of the horse racing industry. He 
has an open door policy where anyone can have gripes heard. 
Regarding my gripes, seldom does he agree totally, but he is 
fair. He makes the playing field fair, backed by the letter of 
the law, and you can't ask for any more than that. 

"Robert Tourtelot, I believe, is an asset to all 
segments of the California horse racing industry. For us from 
organized labor, he is essential, indispensable because he is 
fair! 

"I urge you join me and actively support the 
reappointment of Robert Tourtelot as Commissioner of the 
California Horse Racing Board. 

"Sincerely, Richard D. Castro, Vice President, 
Northern Business Agent." 

With that, if anyone has any questions, I'd be 
glad to answer them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What does it say about society 
when people are just so happy that somebody happens to be fair? 
It's like me, you know. I keep my word, so I'm all right. 



40 

MR. TOURTELOT: I don't know., I've been a trial 
lawyer for 32 years. All I ask for is the judge to be fair, 
whether I win or not. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I know that, but I mean that it 
just says almost that being fair today is like people aren't. 

This is not critical of you, but it's kind of 
critical of what's happening to society. 

What do you think could save horse racing, live 
racing in this state? 

I have a theory that probably in the year 2004, 
there's going to be one track in Omaha, Nebraska, running 24 
hours around the clock, with simulcast going all throughout the 
country. 

I'm facetious, but I'm half serious, because I 
don't think that a lot of people in the state realize that the 
horse racing industry is not just a race track. I mean, it's 
the breeders; it's the people that grow the feed. There's a 
whole part of the industry that people aren't aware of. It's 
more than just Santa Anita or Hollywood. 

MR. TOURTELOT: And 22,000 people are employed in 
all these aspects. 

Well, they said that about football also, there 'd 
be one stadium and everything's on television. 

It may be that — and I'm not happy — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: When did they say that? I 
never heard that one. There wouldn't be enough TV revenue for 
it. 

MR. TOURTELOT: They said that they'd have a 



41 

small stadium, and there 'd be television pay TV for football. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Everybody 'd play one game after 
another? 

MR. TOURTELOT: Right. 

Getting back, I hope it doesn't happen, but it 
won't happen throughout the United States that there's one 
track, but I do believe that there's a possibility in 
California, you may have certainly one in Northern California 
and one in Southern California. I'd hate to see that. 

I think that we are making some stride. When I 
first went on the Board, I went to a symposium in Tucson, 
Arizona on the horse racing industry, and the common thread that 
ran through everyone's speech was that we all have to pull on 
the same rope in the same direction. 

We have all these associations, all running in 
different directions. There's no common marketing, such as you 
have with the NFL or the NBA, et cetera, the NHL. And they 
finally, after 40-some years, they've formed a National 
Association of all of the race tracks, major race tracks in the 
United States. It's being funded by each track, has a staff. 
And they are dedicated to a national marketing plan, ways they 
can save expenses. I mean, it's ludicrus to have four different 
printing plants for programs, for example, for tracks in 
California. And sharing marketing expenses, and trying to 
increase the fan base. How do we do that? 

My brother, who's here today, Richard Tourtelot, 
I took him to the track one day and he said, "you know, your 
problem here is, you need Disney out here to make this an 



42 

event. " 

I mean, in between races is 28 minutes, and 
people just sit there. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Very boring. 

MR. TOURTELOT: And they're bored to death. New 
fans don't understand the racing form. I mean, an algebra book 
would be probably more understandable than a racing form. 

So, you know, they just don't understand it. 
It's boring. 

But there is some light at the end of the tunnel 
if we all pull together, because Hollywood Park last year, 
Friday night, opening night, had 35,000 people. And they were 
young yuppies, smoking cigars, drinking beer. There was a band, 
and they were having a good time because it was an event. And I 
always say, if they can get 35,000 people for that, then there 
is some hope for racing. 

But the only hope is that people will all work 
together from a marketing standpoint. 

CHAIRMTU^ BURTON: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I don't know if this is for 
publication or not, but I heard a rumor that Santa Anita's 
phasing out. 

MR. TOURTELOT: I just spoke to the Chairman of 
the Board at Santa Anita last Saturday, a week ago Saturday. 
And the company that bought them has just spent some $24 million 
improving the track. I may be wrong in the number, but it's a 
large number, because I asked him same question. He said they 
are dedicated to keeping that track. 



43 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's the most beautiful track 
I've ever seen. 

MR. TOURTELOT: And I was quoted. I sent the 
newsletter with an article about me to the Committee/ and I was 
quoted in there that it would be over my dead body, if I had any 
say-so, that they would tear down Santa Anita, because I just 
think it's something that you'll never have again. 

By the way, I voted for your track out at Pomona. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you, I appreciate it. 

MR. TOURTELOT: I wanted you to know that. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I want to thank you very much 
for making me feel more secure that my district is bringing in 
lots of revenue at Hollywood Track. Thank you. 

MR. TOURTELOT: You're welcome. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any support? Any opposition? 
Your brother for you or against you? Just keeping an eye out. 

FROM THE AUDIENCE: For. 

SENATOR AYALA: Move the nomination. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Moved by Senator Ayala. Call 



the roll. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 
SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 



SECRETARY WEBB 
SECRETARY WEBB 
SENATOR HUGHES 
SECRETARY WEBB 



Ayala Aye. 

Senator Hughes. 

Aye. 

Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 
SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 



44 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Leave the roll open for 
Senator Brulte. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Brulte has asked that he 
be added as an Aye vote on all appointees. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Without objection. 
[Thereafter, SENATOR BRULTE 
added his Aye vote, making the 
final vote 5-0 for confirmation.] 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, sir, and 
congratulations. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 2:25 P.M.] 
— ooOoo — 



45 

CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

1, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

. ^ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 

/ / day of ^yV/j^g^ 1998. 





FTpMiz^^ 
Shorthand Reporter 



348-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.50 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 348-R when ordering. 



DEPOSITORY ITEM 
L .;v1ENTS DEPT. 

APR 241998 

S-. -RANCibCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



^HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

MONDAY, MARCH 23, 1998 
1:47 P.M. 



349-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



MONDAY, MARCH 23, 1998 
1:47 P.M. 



Reported by 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR JOHN BURTON, Chair 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS, Vice Chair 

SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 

SENATOR TERESA HUGHES 

SENATOR WILLIAM KNIGHT 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

WADE TEASDALE, Consultant to SENATOR LEWIS 

FELICE TANENBAUM, Consultant to SENATOR HUGHES 

JOSH LOWERY, Consultant to SENATOR KNIGHT 

ALSO PRESENT 

JO ANN GORDON, Warden 

California Rehabilitation Center, Norco 

ROY MABRY, State President 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 

FRANK R. SEARCY, President 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 

FLAVIO DURAND, President 

Norco Chapter 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 

LEE A. GRISSOM, Secretary 
Trade and Commerce Agency 

SENATOR STEVE PEACE 

BOB MONAGAN, Chair 
World Trade Commission 

WAYNE SCHELL, President and Chief Executive Officer 
California Association for Local Economic Development 

ANNE KELLY 
Anheuser-Busch Companies 



Ill 



CONRAD W. HEWITT, Commissioner 
Department of Financial Institutions 

ED LEVY 

Western League of Savings Institutions 

4 

RUSSELL NOACK 

5 California Association of Thrift and Loan Companies 

6 GREGORY O. WILHELM 
California Bankers Association 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



IV 

INDEX 

Page 

Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees; 

JO ANN GORDON, Warden 

California Rehabilitation Center, Norco 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Plans for Holding Employees Responsible 

and Accountable for Their Conduct 2 

Internal Affairs Process at CRC 3 

Ensuring Employees against 

Retaliation by Other Employees 3 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Substance Abuse Education for 

Felon Prisoners 4 

Proposals to Expand Substance Abuse 

Programs in Institution 5 

Basic 12-Step Programs 5 

Views on Alternatives to Incarceration 6 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Educational Programs for All Inmates 7 

Screening Process for Educational 

Programs 7 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Nonsmoking Policy in Prison 9 

Witnesses in Support: 

ROY MABRY, State President 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 9 

FRANK R. SEARCY, President 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 10 



3 
4 
5 

6 
7 
8 

9 
10 

II 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 



27 
28 



FLAVIO DURAND, President 

Norco Chapter 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 10 

Motion to Confirm 11 

Committee Action 11 

LEE A. GRISSOM, Secretary 

Trade and Commerce Agency 11 

Introduction and Support by SENATOR STEVE PEACE 11 

Background and Experience 13 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Number of Exempt Employees at Agency 17 

Number of Exempt Positions Which Have 

Become Civil Service Positions 17 

Request for Information on Exempts 17 

Payment of Employees in Mexico City 

Office in Pesos 17 

Evidence of Job Creation or Foreign 

Investment as a Result of Overseas Trips ...... 18 

Request for Information on Benefit and Cost 

of Overseas Trips 19 

Opening Three More Trade Offices 19 

American Jobs Sent Overseas 21 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Corporate Downsizing 22 

Agency's Assistance to Small Businesses 

in Small Cities and Rural Areas 24 



Outreach Programs 24 

25 Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

26 



Concern of Travel Agents about 

Unfair Competition 25 

Current Status 27 



I 



VI 

Motion to Confirm 27 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Competition with Free Enterprise System 28 

Downsizing of California Military Bases 29 

Strategy to Keep Aerospace Industry in 
California 30 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Program Concerning Underground Storage 

Tanks 31 

Lack of Money in Program to Help Small 
Businesses Remove and Replace Tanks 32 

Possibility of Extending December 

Deadline 32 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Status of Funds for Underground Storage 

Tank Loan Program 34 

Statements by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Return of Small Gas Station 35 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Mission Depletion at Various Bases 36 

Statement by Acting Secretary of 

Air Force 36 

Status of Edwards Air Force Base 37 

Witnesses in Support: 

BOB MONAGAN, Chair 

World Trade Commission 37 

WAYNE SCHELL, President and CEO 

California Association for Local 

Economic Development 38 

ANNE KELLY 

Anheuser-Busch Companies 39 

Committee Action 40 



via 



9 
10 

11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 



25 



CONRAD W. HEWITT, Commissioner 

Department of Financial Institutions 40 

Background and Experience 41 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Amended Regulation Permits Branch 

Closures without Notification 44 



Department ' s Position on SB 1669 46 

g Appearance of Consumer Unfriendliness 46 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 



SB 1669 Deletes Department's Authority 

over Deceptive Advertising by Industrial 

Loan Companies 47 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Handouts which Advice Groups to Put 

Money in Political Process to Obtain 

Favorable Legislation 48 

Position on Credit Union Issue 50 

SB 1669 's Proposal to End Notice 

Requirement of Branch Closures 52 

Deletion of Authority to Stop 

Deceptive Advertising 52 

Reducing Scope of Existing Requirements 

for Industrial Loan Companies 53 

Witnesses in Support; 

ED LEVY 

Western League of Savings Institutions 55 



23 RUSSELL NOACK 
California Association of Thrift and Loan 

24 Companies 55 



Discussion of SB 1669 57 



26 GREGORY O. WILHELM 

California Bankers Association 59 



27 

Statement by CHAIRMAN BURTON to Put Over 
28 Confirmation 61 



A 



Termination of Proceedings 
Certificate of Reporter . . . 



Vlll 



61 
62 



P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— ooOoo — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We'll start first with Jo Ann 
Gordon/ Warden, California Rehabilitation Center, Norco. 

Hi. 

MS. GORDON: Hi. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Go ahead./ 

MS. GORDON: Good afternoon, Senator Burton and 
to the Senate Rules Committee. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We do have your resume and 
everything that are part of our record, so why don't you just 
briefly give a pitch. Then, if we have any questions, we'll be 
happy to ask them of you. 

MS. GORDON: Not a problem. 

Thank you very much for allowing me to make this 
brief presentation. Like you said, you have my resume, so I 
won't go into a lot of details. 

I have been with the Department of Corrections 
for approximately 23 years. I started my career as a 
correctional officer at the California Rehabilitation Center. 
This is my fourth time working at the California Rehabilitation 
Center, and now I am back there as the Warden upon confirmation 
by the Rules Committee. 

And I turned 50 last week, so I'm nifty-fifty. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Just a kid, all right. 

Senator Hughes, any questions? 

SENATOR HUGHES: Just a couple of brief ones. 

Thank you for being with us this afternoon, and 



1 thank you for all your years of service. 

2 MS. GORDON: Thank you. 

3 SENATOR HUGHES: Your background is quite 

4 impressive. 

5 How do you plan on holding your employees 

6 responsible and accountable for their conduct? And I know that 

7 a lot of the institutions are now being investigated and there 

8 is a disciplinary process. 

9 How are you handling these discipline problems? 

10 What are your expectations? How do you go about it? 

11 MS. GORDON: First of all, one of things that I 

12 do iS/ I lead by example. And I expect my employees to follow 

13 the example that I put out there as the lead, as the person in 

14 charge of the prison. 

15 The second thing is that we have to ensure that 

16 our employees know what the rules and regulations are. So, we 

17 have to be able to share information with them. We have to be 

18 able to train them so that they can do the job. Training is 

19 what helps equip them with what they need to do their job. 

20 The third thing is, if there is a situation in 

21 which we need to take disciplinary action on an employee, we 

22 need to do that without prejudice. We need to open a fact 

23 finder and do that as quickly as possible, because it's 

24 important that staff are able to get — what I say, get what 

25 they have coming. If they are not guilty of a charge, we should 

26 be able to clear them quickly. And if they are guilty of 

27 whatever the charge is, we should be able to take fair and quick 

28 disciplinary action. 



SENATOR HUGHES: What are your internal affairs 
processes at CRC? 

MS. GORDON: What are the internal affairs 
processes? Basically what happens is, there may be an 
allegation that comes forward. If the allegation comes forward, 
or when the allegation comes forward, I review that allegation. 

If there is sufficient information to open an 
investigation, I turn that over to my investigator, and we open 
a fact finder. Part of that, though, is to find out whether 
that would be something the prison could investigate, or if we 
need to refer to our internal affairs team that's outside of the 
prison. 

SENATOR HUGHES: How do you ensure, or do you try 
to ensure to your employees that no retaliatory processes will 
take place if they come and they tell you, or if they tell some 
outside agency that is investigating, are they reassured by you, 
or do you plan on reassuring them that there will not be any 
reprisals? 

This is the kind of paranoia that we are 
observing of the entire system. 

How do you personally handle this, having all the 
experience that you have? 

MS. GORDON: Well, I do it in a number of ways. 
Number one, I have an open-door policy. I believe that when 
people say something, they have something to say, and we should 
be listening to what they have to say. Whether that is an 
employee that is exceptional employee in terms of one of our 
better employees, or whether that's an employee that may not be 



1 an exceptional employee, maybe what sometimes we refer to as 

2 disgruntled employees. But if they have something to say, there 

3 needs to be someone that hears what they have to say. 

4 I look at that on that merit and go from there. 

5 I view retaliation as I view escapes, and that is, there's no 

6 tolerance for escapes; there's no tolerance for staff that 

7 attempt to retaliate on other staff that come forward. 

8 SENATOR HUGHES: What do you do if you believe 

9 that a person is being retaliated against and you feel that 

10 something has to be done? What steps? I'm just making up a 

11 hypothetical, but what steps would you take? 

12 MS. GORDON: If I felt that there was someone 

13 being retaliated against, then I would refer that for an 

14 investigation. Whether that would be in the prison, depending 

15 on what the situation is, or with our internal affairs group 

16 that's outside of the prison, I would make sure tha:t it was 

17 investigated, because we cannot tolerate that. 

18 SENATOR HUGHES: No other questions. 

19 I believe you, too. 

20 MS. GORDON: Thank you. I love my job, too. 

21 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are felony inmates offered drug 

22 abuse education there? 

23 MS. GORDON: Not in the substance abuse program 

24 that we have. It's primarily for civil addicts at this time. 

25 But one of our proposals is to have substance 
2 6 abuse programming for felons as well. 

27 CHAIRMAN BURTON: I would hope so. 

28 MS. GORDON: Absolutely. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have the support of the 
Department and the Governor's Office on the funding it will take 
to do that? 

MS. GORDOt^: Do I have the support of them? At 
this time, I have not seen anything directly, but I do have 
proposals up that would consider that, that that would be 
considered. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are you making proposals and 
you send them up the line to them? 

MS. GORDON: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're waiting to hear back. 

MS. GORDON: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRM7\N BURTON: How long have they been up the 
line? 

MS. GORDON: One of the proposals has been up 
for couple months. It has to do with about 800 beds total for 
substance abuse programming at CRC, and that is including felons 
and civil addicts. 

The only holdup at this time has to do with 
some — we have seismic retrofit that's going on, and it kind 
of eliminates some of the program space. So, that has been 
approved, but it probably won't come on line for a couple of 
years. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In there, do they have any 
basic twelve-step programs? 

MS. GORDON: Yes, sir. We so have self-help 
groups Narcotic Anonymous, Cocaine Anonymous, Alcohol Anonymous, 
that is available to the felons as well as to the civil addicts. 



1 CHAIRMAN BURTON: If anybody wants in, they get 

2 in? 

3 MS. GORDON: Yes, sir. 

4 CHAIRMAN BURTON: You've got room? 

5 MS. GORDON: Yes, sir. The substance abuse 

6 programming/ Senator, has to do with in our education department 

7 that we do substance abuse education for civil addicts only at 

8 this time, and that we have several courses. 

9 In the book that I gave you, you'll see there is 

10 I believe it's a twelve-week course for new commitments, and 

11 then we have something for parole violators and for what we 

12 consider gate turn-in as civil addicts. 

13 No, that is not available to the felons at this 

14 time. 

15 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Because of money, basically? 

16 MS. GORDON: Yes. 

17 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any views on 

18 punishment options, which some call alternatives to 

19 incarceration? What would make sense instead of the high cost 

20 of bringing people into the system, that some type of punishment 

21 options that will be available on the outside? 

22 MS. GORDON: Do I personally have opinions on 

23 that? Is that what you're asking? 

24 CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's what I'm asking. 

25 MS. GORDON: Yes, yes, sir, I do. I have some 
2 6 opinions. Would you like me to share them with you? 

27 CHAIRMAN BURTON: A couple. 

28 MS. GORDON: Well, I think that we need to take 



into consideration all the options we have because we cannot 
build our way out of/ or build enough beds to house many of the 
people that have committed crimes. So, we need to have some 
other alternatives. 

And one of the other alternatives would be for 
offenders that have substance abuse problems. I think that some 
of those low-end offenders like that could be housed in areas 
where they could get treatment for their substance abuse. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any other questions. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, one question. 

CHAIRMT^ BURTON: I'd like to welcome Colonel 
Knight to the Committee. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I'm the new guy on the block. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You people aren't supposed to 
comment for two weeks. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I was wondering, your 
educational programs, do you have enough to provide educational 
programs to all inmates? 

MS. GORDON: Academic just primarily or 
vocational and academic? 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Vocational, work programs, et 
cetera, to prepare for parole. 

MS. GORDON: No, I don't think so. I would like 
to have more. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Then following that, is there a 
screening process to determine those inmates that will be most 
likely to succeed on the outside as opposed to those most likely 
to return, before you take up those precious vocational training 



1 

2 
3 
4 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



8 

programs? 

MS. GORDON: No, we do not have a screening 
process that meets that criteria. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: My understanding is that there 
are a lot of inmates that, they go through the programs, and 
they'll tell you right up front, "I don't care what you do. I'm 
going to do what I want to do on the outside, and whatever you 
do in here isn't going to affect me in the least, so you're 
wasting your time." 

Those people, I would suggest that maybe you 
don't spend the time on them. We don't spend the money. We at 
least give the people who are telling us that they're going to 
reform, they're going to be better citizens, and they're going 
to take advantage of everything they can. 

There should be some screening process, I think, 
before we utilize those resources. 

MS. GORDON: Yes, sir. 

Generally speaking, in our classification 
committees, most of the inmates — and I can only speak for CRC 
at this point, which has the civil addicts and the felons, and 
every inmate at that prison will parole in ten years or less. 

Most of the inmates that we come across in 
classification are inmates that want to program. They do not ■ 
generally tell us that they're not going to do anything on the 
outside, because if they do, then we do have the option, if 
they're not going to — even if they say that, but they are 
willing to program in the prison, we still give them an 
opportunity to improve, and hopefully, they will do something 



when they get out. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Ms. Gordon and I had a long 
discussion on her lapse of enforcing the law when it came to 
smoking within the prison. That goes for inmates as well as 
correctional officers. 

But I believe that, as a matter of fact, I think 
your prison's going to be model prison for nonsmoking 
activity — 

MS. GORDON: For inmates. 

SENATOR AYALA: — for the Department, and they 
have chosen your prison. 

I think it's very apropos, because the building 
is not a stucco or cement. It's a structure made out of 
timber. It was a Navy hospital during World War II, and so that 
inmates starting a fire in that building would be one heck of a 
disaster. That thing would have burned up in no time at all. 

And we've read where inmates have caused problems 
in other prisons throughout the country by setting their 
mattresses on fire, and so forth. So, I hope we learned a 
lesson from that, that we don't want these people smoking 
inside. That goes for correctional officers as well. 

If they don't like it, they should look for job 
elsewhere, as far as I'm concerned. 

Thank you. 

MS. GORDON: You're welcome. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Supporters, briefly. 

MR. MABRY: Chairman Burton and the Rules 



10 

1 Committee Members, my name is Roy Mabry. I'm the State 

2 President for the Association of Black Correctional Workers. 

3 I'm here representing our general membership 

4 today in one hundred percent support for Warden Gordon. 

5 I'd like to welcome your newest Rules Committee . 

6 Member, Mr. Knight. ' • 

7 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Others in support. 

8 MR. SEARCY: I am Frank Searcy. I am President 

9 of the Chicano Correctional Workers Association. 

10 Thank you, gentlemen and Chairman, for allowing 

11 us to be here this afternoon to offer our support for Ms. Gordon 

12 and her candidacy for Warden at that institution. 

13 We recognize, as you do because you have her work 

14 experience and her resume, we all agree that she has a very, 

15 very good varied experience in the field of corrections, as she 

16 mentioned, starting at the bottom as a correctional officer. 

17 So again, we offer our support, and we encourage 

18 and urge you to confirm her and the Committee for Warden at that 

19 institution. 

20 Thank you. 

21 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Next, sir. 

22 MR. DURAND: My name is Flavio Durand. I'm a 

23 sergeant at the California Rehabilitation Center at Norco. I'm 

24 also a President for Norco Chapter. I was hoping Mr. Searcy and 

25 I would speak together. 

26 But I am also supporting Ms. Gordon for Warden at 

27 the California Rehabilitation Center. I've known Ms. Gordon for 

28 many years, and she's a very fair woman. I know she'll do a 



11 

very good job there. 

CRC Norco Chapter of CCWA, as well as the 
statewide association, will support Ms. Gordon also. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

Is there any opposition? 

Now, Senator Hughes asked about retaliation 
against people that said bad things. Do we have favoritism for 
these people that say good things? 

SENATOR HUGHES: Move. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Moved by Senator Hughes. Call 



the roll. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

MS. GORDON: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Lee Grissom is next. 

Senator Peace. 

SENATOR PEACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 



12 

1 Mr. President, Members. 

2 I have the pleasure today to introduce to you a 

3 gentleman whom I've known for a number of years. I know you 

4 have the history and the bio, and all the particulars with 

5 respect to his service before you, so I'm not going to replicate 

6 them. 

7 But there is one particular historical note that 

8 is of particularly really pretty dramatic accomplishment that, I 

9 think, merely out of a sense of embarrassment in terms of not 

10 being one to promote himself too aggressively that Mr. Grissom 

11 tends to omit from his biography that I think really says it all 

12 about him. 

13 This is a gentleman who, at his own volition, 

14 without any coercion whatsoever, volunteered his desk and his 

15 family's pictures to represent the Office of the Presidency of 

16 the United States in that great cult classic, "Attack of the 

17 Killer Tomatoes." 

18 [Laughter.] . 

19 MR. GRISSOM: They've almost forgiven me, I might 

20 add. 

21 SENATOR PEACE: Having that kind of courage, and 

22 of course, you must remember that this was a decision made in 

23 San Diego, not exactly either a — well, I'm going to be 

24 careful. Let's just say there was some risk involved in taking 

25 that action. 

26 I've had the pleasure to literally grow up in 

27 public life knowing Lee Grissom in one iteration or another 

28 throughout my entire adulthood. In each of those capacities. 



13 

whether working with the Chamber of Commerce/ or in his various 
performances and opportunities in public service, he has always 
been a straight-forward representative, a person that I think 
all parties from various walks of life feel comfortable, not 
only going to in terms of attempting to seek answers and 
assistance, but frankly confiding in. A person who could put 
aside whatever the history or paths that led to a particular 
position or opportunity, and conduct himself in a manner that 
was consistent with the public service and the public charge, 
not just consistently, but always. 

And I can give no other, no higher recommendation 
and with any greater level of confidence that would not be 
contradicted or embarrassed in the future than to suggest for 
your consideration, as strange as it may be that he wants the 
job, your confirmation of Mr. Grissom. 

MR. GRISSOM: Thank you very much. Senator. 

CHAIRMT^ BURTON: Thank you. Senator. 

If you want to give a brief statement, then I've 
got a couple of questions for you. 

MR. GRISSOM: Sure, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Committee. 

For the record, my name is Lee Grissom. I was • 
raised in San Diego, was a graduate of San Diego State, 
undergraduate and graduate school. 

As Senator Peace indicated, I spent about 19 
years as President of the San Diego Chamber of Commerce. While 
I did most of the traditional things you would expect of an 



14 

1 organization like that, certainly business advocacy, it was also 

2 very creative. One of the things it did start in the middle 

3 1970s was the Film Bureau. 

4 Shortly after we started it, I got a call from a 

5 young man who said, "It's one thing to entice companies from 

6 Hollywood to come down here and use the production facilities, 

7 but why don't you help some of the home-grown?" And it was a 

8 little production unit called Four Square Productions, and they 

9 were doing a movie called "Killer Tomatoes." 

10 I did actually — was back in Washington for a 

11 week. And they used my office as the Office of the President of 

12 the United States. They liked the windows. They did keep my 

13 family pictures up on the wall, and they have almost forgiven me 

14 by now. 

15 It was an interesting organization and rather 

16 creative. It started an economic development corporation in San 

17 Diego. It applied in the 1980s for a small business grant from 

18 the federal government, which set up a small business assistance 

19 center that was later used by Assemblyman Katz and Senator 

20 Robert i as the model for the state program, and it was very 

21 involved with international trade, sending more than 50 trades 

22 missions throughout the world during the time I was there. 

23 It did some things that were rather unusual for 

24 an organization like that. On one occasion, for example, we 

25 asked for a county grand jury investigation into the issuance of 

26 a multi-million dollar contract. We thought that fraudulent 

27 activities had taken place. A year later, after our request, 

28 and the grand jury investigation completed, they handed down 103 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



15 

pages of indictments/ many of them RICO related. Three people 
went to jail, six people lost their jobs, and the contract was 
changed. 

We also did something rather unusual . On one 
occasion, our largest member, which in fact was a utility in San 
Diego, wanted us to support a merger with So-Cal Edison. We 
thought it wasn't in the best interests of the community, 
knowing full well we would lose our largest member. When we did 
that, later on they did, in fact, remove their dues and didn't 
reinstate them until I came to Sacramento. 

In addition to the Chamber activities, I spent 
four years as Chairman of the Housing Commission in San Diego 
when we created the first single-resident occupancy hotel built 
in United States in 50 years, for which I was honored by St. 
Vincent de Paul for a commitment to homeless. And I spent 
almost eight years as a Trustee with the California State 
University system, representing the 400,000 alumni of that 
system. 

Governor Wilson asked me in January of '91 to 
help organize the Council on California Competitiveness, which 
was Chaired by Peter Ubberoth. I did that; worked very closely 
with Assemblyman, at the time, Vasconcellos on the ADEPT 
program. We didn't consult, but we coordinated, reached many of 
the same conclusions. 

At the completion of that, the Governor asked me 
in June of 1992 to come up here and be a senior advisor on 
economic development. I came. About six months later, he asked 
me to take on additional responsibility as Director of his 



16 

1 Council of Economic Advisors, which was and is Chaired by George 

2 Schultz. TVnd then a few months after that, I was appointed 

3 Director of Planning and Research. 

4 I have served, at the appointment of the 

5 Governor, as Secretary of Trade and Commerce since August. I 

6 have found the job demanding. I've found it involving. It is a 

7 very interesting agency. In some ways I feel as if my whole 

8 life was preparation for this particular job. 

9 It is clearly staffed by some of the most 

10 talented people it's ever been my honor to work with. And it's 

11 also clearly an organization that's needed in California. 

12 Economic development needs an advocate in this state. 

13 When Rose Ann Vuich authored the bill, I think it 

14 resonated with Members of both parties. 

15 But the Agency clearly understands, it's not just 

16 business, but it is clearly government, local governments that 

17 also need assistance. And so, we spent a lot of our time 

18 working with local government units. 

19 If I have a special predisposition, it's towards 

20 small business. In the 1980s, when 17 million jobs were created 

21 in the United States, Fortune 500 lost several hundred thousand. 

22 In fact. Fortune 1,000 didn't do much better. Those jobs were 

23 created primarily by small and larger businesses — small and 

24 mid-sized businesses getting larger. That, I continue to 

25 believe, is the base of the strength of the California economy, 

26 and certainly our national economy as well. 

27 I do believe that it's important that government 

28 play a supportive and not a competitive role. And I think it's 



17 

1 important that government always be a watchdog to make sure its 

2 efforts don't move into a competitive arena. 

3 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

4 CHAIRMAN BURTON: How many exempt employees are 

5 there at the — 

6 MR. GRISSOM: I believe right now we are 

7 scheduled for 318, and we're — 

8 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Exempt? 

9 MR. GRISSOM: . Oh, I'm sorry. Exempts, I believe 

10 there are about 30. Part of that — 

11 CHAIRMAN BURTON: How many formerly exempt 

12 positions have been passed over into civil service, do you know? 

13 MR. GRISSOM: Sir, I do not know that. 

14 CHAIRMAN BURTON: I wonder if you could get us 

15 that. The information would be, how many that used to be exempt 

16 that have then been transformed into civil service, and whether 

17 the same person who had the exempt job now basically has got the 

18 civil service position. 

19 MR. GRISSOM: So, you would like to know how many 

20 exempts are there, and also how many formerly exempts. 

21 CHAIRMAN BURTON: How many formerly exempt slots 

22 have been transitioned to civil service, and whether the same 

23 person who was the exempt is now civil service. 

24 MR. GRISSOM: We will supply you with that 

25 information. 

26 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thanks. 

27 The Agency's had a practice of paying employees 

28 in Mexico City in pesos rather than dollars? 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



18 

MR. GRISSOM: Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, the 
Agency follows federal guidelines, and also local laws that 
apply to the payment of employees. 

In the Mexico City case, our Director there, 
R. C. Schrader, had hired two people as consultants and was 
paying them in pesos. 

I have changed that policy, and we are now 
providing -- whichever currency the employee would like to 
receive, the compensation is, is the way that they will be paid. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: On overseas trips, and it's got 
nothing to do with you. It's got most to do with overseas 
trips. 

Has there ever been any concrete evidence of job 
creation, direct foreign investment as a result? Or, just kind 
of a nice trip, see what we can do, and not such happens? 

I was very surprised the President of San 
Francisco State, I needed him to do something, and he only had 
two days because he was going over to China. I says, "I guess 
you're going to do a lot of exchange student work." I was 
giving him a little sarcastic shot, and he acted like I was 
serious. 

Do you see, you know, like the cost of these 
trips to the taxpayers versus real benefit, as opposed to just 
sort of rationalization benefit? 

MR. GRISSOM: I think it's fairly easy to justify 
not only the trips that are made by senior members of the 
Agency, but also the existence of the overseas offices. 

We keep very detailed statistics on that. While 



19 

1 I have been a Secretary, since August, I've been on three 

2 overseas trips. The first one was, let's take 48 California 

3 companies to London in October, where we presented them to 400 

4 potential investors. In fact, at that particular meeting, we 

5 were able to identify one company from the previous year that 

6 had a $25 million contract. 

7 In addition we have been able to now, since I've 

8 been Secretary — 

9 CHAIRMAN BURTON: You went over there this year, 

10 and you were able to identify somebody who had a contract last 

11 year? 

12 MR. GRISSOM: We were able to take — 

13 CHAIRMAN BURTON: You could have done that 

14 without a trip. 

15 MR. GRISSOM: Well, except that we were taking 48 

16 companies that had not been on the previous year's trip and 

17 introducing them to 400 investors. And those are the contracts 

18 that we're working on right now. 

19 CHAIRMAN BURTON: If you could get us, you know, 

20 to the extent you can, not just the trips you've been on, but 

21 trips taken, the cost of the trips, and basically the benefit. 

22 I've got one more question, then I'm going to 

23 hand the gavel over to Senator Lewis because I have to go make 

24 an appearance somewhere else. 

25 I believe you're talking about opening three 

26 more, four more trade offices, you know, overseas jobs for 

27 people. 

28 MR. GRISSOM: The Governor's Office — excuse me. 



20 

1 the Governor's budget has proposed that three new offices, 

2 actually representation, be opened in Sao Paulo, Brazil, in 

3 Shanghai, and Singapore. 

4 However, I have changed the policy from the 

5 earlier Secretary. I think when any business goes into an area, 

6 instead of going in and opening up an office, and fully staffing 

7 it, and fully equipping it, I think one of the things that you 

8 should do is go in, hire a representative there, and detail to 

9 them a mission statement, clear objectives, and the strategy, 

10 and see if, in fact, the market that you've identified is there, 

11 and if it can be brought to fruition, 

12 If it has, then I believe you go in, and then you 

13 staff it. 

14 So, the first — these offices would really not 

15 be offices in the traditional sense, but really would be 

16 retaining of representation in those areas. 

17 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, that's 250 grand an 

18 office for a representative. That's not a bad salary. 

19 MR. GRISSOM: If you include everything — I 

20 mean, that includes, you know, their office and all their 

21 expenses. 

22 CHAIRMAN BURTON: They're not consultants doing 

23 anything else? They're going to be sole employees of the State 

24 of California? 

25 MR. GRISSOM: In some cases. As you know, and 

26 in, for example, in Israel, we have a representative that does 

27 have other clients. 

28 We're certainly going to insist that they have no 



21 

1 other clients that would compete with California. 

2 CHAIRMAN BURTON: The point I'm making, I'm a 

3 consultant. I've got an office anyway. I'm paying rent. I'm 

4 paying secretaries. I'm paying phone. I'm paying FAXes. 

5 MR. GRISSOM: Right. 

6 CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, to say you're giving me 250 

7 grand, and that's supposed to cover an office and overhead, I've 

8 already got an office and overhead that I'm taking care of now. 

9 MR. GRISSOM: Well, I'll tell you, they will be 

10 competitively bid. And obviously, the best deal that we can get 

11 for California taxpayers is the way we're going to proceed. 

12 CHAIRM7\N BURTON: I would think, and I don't know 

13 what subcommittee this goes to, I'm wondering whether or not 

14 there ought to be legislation. 

15 But anyway, I just think that, and not just this 

16 place, but everybody kind of goes huckelty-buck having these 

17 offices over there, to what benefit, I'm not sure. 

18 They go over there and bring businesses from 

19 Singapore over here. Or, bringing businesses from here over to 

20 Singapore, where they can end up putting American workers out of 

21 work, and building something over there, and then bringing it 

22 back here for Calif ornians or someone to buy it. 

23 Again, this is not aimed at you, but I don't know 

24 if that's a noble use of taxpayers' money, to help jobs get sent 

25 overseas. 

26 MR. GRISSOM: Senator, we don't actually do that. 

27 We have two primary functions. 

28 The first is to assist in developing exports from 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

6 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



22 

California to other locations. And secondly is to identify 
inbound investment, people coming into California. Like 
Maschusta came into Torrance, and a number of other companies 
have come in throughout the state, sir. 

SENATOR HUGHES: May I ask a follow-up on that. 

What about the amount of corporate downsizing 
that is taking place? And before, people felt a little bit more 
secure because the' economy was up, but now some of the 
corporations are firing and laying off people. 

What is your Agency's role in this entire 
process, or what is the role as you perceive it? 

MR. GRISSOM: Specifically as it relates to 
corporate downsizing? 

SENATOR HUGHES: Yes. What can you do to 
stabilize, to assist the population as we have this downsizing? 
Or do you feel that the Agency has a role? 

MR. GRISSOM: Senator, when I Ccime to Sacramento, 
California was losing 900 jobs a day, every single day. 
California had reached the point where its reputation throughout 
the country, and certainly among companies in California like 
Intel and others, was that California didn't need business; 
business needed California. And California didn't need to 
support, and didn't need to have a competitive tax policy, 
didn't need to have a stream-lined regulatory policy. You know, 
all it needed to do was simply sit here and companies were going 
to come. 

We were hammered with base closures, but more 
importantly, we had to send a message. We had to market 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



23 

California/ and we had to make some structural changes that were 
very important. 

I think what we've done in international trade, 
where now 25 percent of the jobs in this state are directly tied 
to foreign investment or international trade, I think that's 
been a very, very important part of it. 

Even with the Asian financial crisis, the third 
quarter figures show that exports from California are up 4.5 
percent over the previous year. A lot of that is because of 
Mexico; 32 percent. People were arguing a couple years ago that 
we should have closed the Mexican office. 

Our Agency is an advocate for California's 
economy. It is an advocate for economic development. It will 
assist it in any way it can, from film production to enterprise 
zones, to the assistance and the promotion of tourism. That is 
our main function. 

As you know so well, we have many, many programs 
for small businesses. And I think those are absolutely 
critical to increase job production in California. So, last 
year we added 479,000 new jobs. That's about 1350 each day. 

This body, and your colleagues in the Senate 
and the Legislature, deserve a great deal of credit for a lot of 
the changes that have been taken. And I believe that the 
Agency, which was created by you to do this kind promotion, 
deserves credit as well. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What about small cities? You're 
talking about big cities like San Diego, and San Francisco, and 
Los T^geles. 



24 

1 What about small cities where there are potential 

2 entrepreneurs who want to open a business? What kind of 

3 assistance does your Agency give, and how broadly do they spread 

4 this information about how people can get assistance in that 

5 regard? 

6 That's something that I'm interested in for a lot 

7 of the small businesses that I represent. 

8 MR. GRISSOM: And I certainly understand that. 

9 And as I said before, that's where the future is. 

10 SENATOR HUGHES: How do you get the word out? 

11 That's my question. Or are you getting the word out, or do some 

12 people know, other people don't know? 

13 MR. GRISSOM: I would be willing to say that some 

14 people know and some people don't know. And that we should try 

15 harder make sure that as many people as possible know. 

16 As you know, I think if you've read the LAO 

17 Report, you saw that we were hammered because they were 

18 criticizing us for desiring to increase our small business 

19 funding. 

20 That is a program — that is a program that we 

21 leveraged to $90 million a year. That is a program for which 

22 people are only qualified if they have been turned down by a 

23 bank. Our default rate on that is 2.8 percent. I think that is 

24 unbelievably small, considering that we're working with people 

25 that are really at risk. 

26 So, through the eight offices that we have 

27 throughout the state marketing those loans, through the four 

28 regional offices, and through staff members going out and 



25 

putting on the foruins/ and working with good groups, like Cal. 
Ed., groups that understand the grassroots, that understand the 
business communities, those — I think that we make a real 
strong outreach. 

But I'm sure the Senator could point to me areas 
where we need to improve our efforts. And if you do that, I 
will certainly take that leadership. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Good, I'll have someone from my 
staff work with your staff. 

MR. GRISSOM: Thank you, Senator. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I'd like to help you help us 
help ourselves. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Mr. Grissom, I've been getting a 
lot of contacts from travel agents in my district that have 
expressed concern about a program that they believe is competing 
with them unfairly. 

MR. GRISSOM: I'm very much familiar with this. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Can you just give us a little 
update on where that stands now? 

MR. GRISSOM: Sure. As you undoubtedly know, 
that was a contract that was negotiated before I became 
Secretary, and it has two parts: one, traditional distribution 
of publications and brochures for the state; the other half 
called for the creation of a computerized reservation system 
through the Agency's or, actually, the Division's Web site. 

When that went on line in early December, and 
then the 1-800 number in early January, the travel agents 
throughout California were very, very upset about it. 



26 

1 My Deputy Secretary met with them. Thought they 

2 had some legitimate issues; thought he had been able to 

3 accommodate their needs. On February 4th, there was an 

4 Assembly committee that met on this issue. It was obvious at 

5 that time that he had not accommodated their needs. 

6 My staff committed that we would do two public 

7 hearings on it, one in the south and one in northern California. 

8 At the request of the Chair of that committee/ Susan Davis from 

9 San Diego, the first one was done in San Diego. 

10 I decided at that time that I would step in, find 

11 out what the problem was, see if we couldn't resolve it. 

12 I will tell you that I have some real serious 

13 problems with that system. One is, I have a fundamental 

14 question if this is a role of government. Should government be 

15 doing this kind of thing. 

16 Number two, I wondered about what our liability 

17 is. 

18 Number three, I'm concerned about what might 

19 happen if, for example, a person has something bad happen to 

20 them in one of these. What kind of oversight does the state 

21 have. 

22 And finally, I'm really concerned about the issue 

23 of competition. 

24 It is interesting. I have received several 

25 hundred letters for, several hundred against. Almost all the 

26 ones against have been from travel agents. They're the very 

27 group, incidentally, who had themselves successfully taken out 

28 of the Tourism Partnership Assessment Act because they felt that 



27 

« 

1 basically they were sending people out of California and not 

2 into California. 

3 But I think the issue they bring up of 

4 competition is one that clearly needs to be addressed and, if 

5 possible, accommodated. 

6 Most of my letters in favor of it have come from 

7 very small, small bed and breakfasts or small hotels. 

8 SENATOR LEWIS: Where does it stand right now? 

9 MR. GRISSOM: • Currently, I have reviewed the 

10 findings of the two hearings. I have directed staff to pull 

11 together an equal number of people for it and against it. 

12 _ I will try to reach accommodation. I am 

13 continuing the suspension of the system. It was suspended for 

14 60 days starting about the 4th of February. 

15 I will continue that suspension in effect until 

16 either this group comes up with a resolution upon which we will 

17 then hold additional public hearings, or until I'm assured that 

18 it's not a competitive situation that works to the ill of 

19 California businesses. 

20 SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you. 

21 I apologize. I'm going to have to leave, and I 

22 will be turning over the gavel to Senator Hughes now, so we go 

23 down the line. 

24 Before we get to Senator Ayala, I would like to 

25 be recorded though on this, so could I make the motion for 

26 confirmation, and please call my name. 

27 SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Lewis. 

28 SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 



28 

1 SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. 

2 SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Grissom, I have the same 

3 questions that Senator Lewis had. I had a number of letters in 

4 opposition to that policy of competing with the free enterprise 

5 system. 

6 I was surprised/ because this is a Republican 

7 administration. That's a no-no for Republican philosophy, that 

8 you compete with private enterprise. 

9 Why in the world would you even consider doing 

10 such a thing? 

11 MR. GRISSOM: Senator, I was not there at the 

12 time. 

13 SENATOR AYALA: I'm sorry? 

14 MR. GRISSOM: I was not Secretary whenever the 

15 contract was negotiated. It was done — 

16 SENATOR AYALA: I understand you're having 

17 hearings on it? 

18 MR. GRISSOM: Yes, sir. I had two public 

19 hearings: one in Southern California, and one in San Francisco. 

20 I am now pulling together a group of people that 

21 are opposed to it and people in favor of it to find out if there 

22 is some kind of a system that can be developed that could 

23 accommodate the needs of the travel agents. Could this become 

24 a tool that could assist them in their task, if you will, in 

25 their profession. 

26 I'm also seriously questioning if government 

27 should be in this at all. 

28 Based upon the findings of that, I will then hold li 



29 

1 additional public hearings, see if there's, you know, additional 

2 opposition. If there is, then I will have to make a decision 

3 myself. 

4 SENATOR AYALA: The Defense Conversion Council is 

5 scheduled to sunset this year. How does the Agency intend to 

6 deal with the consequences of continued downsizing of California 

7 military bases? 

8 MR. GRISSOM: Senator, as you know, California 

9 was hit with 29 major closures or realignments. The next state, 

10 by the way, was Pennsylvania with ten, and there was Virginia 

11 with nine. I mean, we got hammered. 

12 If you add up all the jobs that were lost in all 

13 the other states, California lost 50 percent more. 

14 What the Governor is proposing to do is really 

15 make permanent our Base Closure Task Force, and make it 

16 permanent within the Agency. 

17 We've had actually our first statewide meeting of 

18 communities that are likely to be impacted in the next round, 

19 which now looks like it'll be 2001, and the second round in 

20 2005. We want to make that a permanent component of the Agency. 

21 We want to work with the communities, and then we want to 

22 provide the very, very best defense. 

23 I'll tell you one thing that concerns me already 

24 is, there's a thing called Mission Bleed — I'm sure that 

25 Senator Knight would be aware of that — where they make the 

26 decisions, basically leave a hollow base. I mean, they really 

27 transfer away quietly missions and responsibilities to other 

28 places, so you're left with nothing but a shell. And then they 



1 

2 

3 

A 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



30 

come in and they say, "Well/ there's nothing there to protect 
anyway. " 

SO/ we have a very strong group right now working 
with that/ working with the Pentagon/ working with David 
Whetmore in our Washington/ D.C. office/ and working with 
Members of Congress to make sure that that's not happening. 

SO/ we'll set it up as a permanent facility, 
fully staffed/ and work with our Congressional delegation to 
protect the units. 

SENATOR AYALA: That was my next question. What 
strategy are you using for keeping the aerospace industry in 
California? What is the potential for accomplishing that? 

MR. GRISSOM: You know, you're obviously very 
much aware of what's happening around Edwards and around 
Vandenburg with the X-33. 

We have now three — we've got that/ and we've 
got the Strike Fighter/ and obviously we're working with the 
other — as the mergers go on/ or now one of them might not go 
on/ we have three Red Teams that are working specifically on the 
X-33 and its next generation. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Venture Star. 

MR. GRISSOM: Venture Star/ yes, sir. 

They've already indicated that they will get down 
to the short list in August, and that they will go out in the 
fall/ and finally make/ I think, make the final decision in 
'99. 

We have three Red Teams. One that's working with 
the state as a whole entity, and two that are working with 



31 

target areas specific: one with Edwards, and one with 
Vandenburg. The Director of our Los Angeles regional office is 
the chair of those Red Teams. 

Just a couple of days ago, I reviewed a ten-page 
action plan to make sure that those projects remain in 
California. And we have already had spot bills introduced to 
protect certain components, either having to do with tax credits 
for equipment or materials that would be used in production, 
maybe setting up special, like, enterprise zone type things for 
tax advantages and training programs for employees. 

It's a high priority for this administration and 
for this Agency, because aerospace and everything related to it 
has been such a part of the seed corn of California's 
technology. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you very much. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: There is a program, a federally 
mandated program, concerning underground storage tanks. 

MR. GRISSOM: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I've got an awful lot of small 
businesses in my district that are coming up on that deadline, 
which is the 22nd of December, for the removal and replacement 
of those tanks. 

There was a program also established to provide 
small interest loans for the accomplishment of those 
change-outs . 

There is no money in the program. The people in 
the small businesses cannot afford to make those tank 



32 

1 swap-outs. They can't afford to do it by the 22nd of December. 

2 There's a whole lot of them that are going to go out of 

3 business. I think the figure I saw was 30,000 of these small 

4 businesses that have not been funded. 

5 Is there a plan of any sort to take care of these 

6 small businesses? Do we have a plan at all, or is there 

7 anything we can do to extend that deadline? 

8 MR. GRISSOM: Senator, the RUST Program, as it's 

9 called, as you know, is within the Agency. We have asked and 

10 received additional funds at the state level for the removal of 

11 those. 

12 I do not know if the deadline is a federal 

13 deadline or a state deadline. 

14 SENATOR KNIGHT: It's a federal deadline. 

15 MR. GRISSOM: Then we would certainly work with 

16 our Washington office to see if the deadline couldn't be 

17 extended. 

18 I certainly will work — I don't believe there 

19 are 30,000 in California. Is that what you're suggesting? 

20 SENATOR KNIGHT: It's 30,000 tanks. 

21 Let me ask you another question right along with 

22 that. Within that budget, there is EPA clean-up funding. Now, 

23 the clean-up funding has no deadline. There is no cutoff for 

24 clean-up. 

25 Is there any way we can move some of those funds 

26 over to a program that has a deadline in order to save the 

27 businesses in California? You know, it would appear logical, 

28 since clean-up doesn't have a deadline, that we could save these 



33 

businesses with some of those funds, and it's all out of the 
same budget. 

MR. GRISSOM: Right. 

Senator this is an issue I certainly will look 
into certainly would support it. The last thing we want to do 
is drive California businesses — 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Well, me, too. 

MR. GRISSOM: — out of business, be they travel 
agents or anything else. 

But this is an issue that I appreciate you 
bringing to my attention. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I think it's a serious issue, 
because speculation is there's going to be numerous small gas 
stations go out of business. You may have to go many miles in 
order to get gas come November and December. 

MR. GRISSOM: In a lot of your district, I have 
to do that anyway. 

[Laughter.] 

SENATOR KNIGHT: But maybe you won't even be able 
to get through the district. 

MR. GRISSOM: If I run out of gas, I will now 
know why. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Further questions. Senator 
Knight? 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No, that'll do it. Senator 
Hughes. Thank you. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: One more question. 



34 

1 You have the underground storage tank loan 

2 program. How is that coming out? They were supposed to earmark 

3 to help the small businessmen. Are you out of funds for that 

4 program now? 

5 MR. GRISSOM: There are funds. As you know, it 

6 was supplemented. I believe it was supplemented last year. 

7 Staff has led me to believe that we have adequate 

8 moneys to accommodate it now, but Senator Knight brought up an 

9 issue of which I was not aware, and I certainly will look into 

10 that. If there are additional funds necessary, we will work 

11 with the Department of Finance to place those into the May 

12 Revise. 

13 • SENATOR AYALA: It's my understanding that the 

14 initial target was the small businessperson, service station 

15 operators. I was just wondering how the program's working? How 

16 is it working out? Is it really doing the job it was intended 

17 to do? 

18 You can tell me later. 

19 MR. GRISSOM: I'd be delighted to do that. 

20 SENATOR KNIGHT: Senator Ayala and Mr. Grissom, I 

21 would suggest that there are no funds available for those small 

22 programs, and even further, that because there are no funds 

23 available, they're not even taking applications in order to 

24 request funds in support of that program. So, I think it's 

25 serious. 

26 MR. GRISSOM: If that is the situation. Senator, 

27 it is very serious. 

28 SENATOR HUGHES: I'm happy to report that in my 



35 

1 neighborhood, a small gas station that had been there for many, 

2 many years, and disappeared and closed up about four or five 

3 years ago, I passed going to church yesterday, and they're 

4 coming back. Another company is coming back to that location. 

5 And I am delighted. 

6 I don't know who decided they'd come back, but 

7 everyone in our neighborhood is proud. 

8 So, if that is a trend that's happening, I think 

9 it's good. I don't know who gets the credit for it. 

10 SENATOR KNIGHT: Well, if it's one of the major 

11 companies — 

12 . SENATOR HUGHES: Yes, it is. And it was a major 

13 company that left. 

14 SENATOR KNIGHT: They can afford to swap out the 

15 tanks, and that's what's happening. In the small businesses, 

16 you're going to find they're going to go out of business. 

17 MR. GRISSOM: Senator, I may have good news and 

18 bad news for you. The good news is that they're back. The bad 

19 news is, the prices may be higher than they were. 

20 SENATOR HUGHES: Well, it may be true, but prices 

21 of gasoline are higher than they were when they closed, period. 

22 But the people in our community really had quite 

23 a distance to go. If they got home and just had a little bit of 

24 gas, they couldn't go anywhere else because they had to go quite 

25 a distance to another gas station. 

26 So, I hope this continues to be a trend. 

27 Senator Knight. 

28 SENATOR KNIGHT: One other. 



36 

1 You mentioned the fact of mission depletion 

2 within various bases. To follow up on that/ the acting 

3 Secretary of the Air Force has already put out a statement 

4 indicating that he has the authority to, in essence, close bases 

5 today without a BRAC. And that he does it in just that manner. 

6 He can move 300 people without anybody's control, and he can 

7 move missions without anybody's control. His statement 

8 indicated that he will, in fact, close bases if there are no 

9 BRAC, and it'll be at his discretion. 

10 And I think it's incumbent on us to get a 

11 Secretary of the Air Force as soon as possible, because he's 

12 going in the wrong direction. 

13 MR. GRISSOM: Senator, actually, I read that 

14 quote. And soon thereafter, of course, he was hammered by a 

15 number of Members in Congress about it. 

16 SENATOR KNIGHT: Sure. 

17 MR. GRISSOM: And there was no question that it 

18 was an attempt — speculation was it was an attempt on the part 

19 of Secretary Cohen to push Congress closer to setting the date 

20 for the next BRAC rounds. 

21 But the thing that worries me is that, we see 

22 that already, and see it across services. That's why our Base 

23 Reuse Task Force so important to be funded in this session. 

24 SENATOR KNIGHT: We see that at Edwards Air Force 

25 Base, and everybody says Edwards Air Force Base is so critical, 

26 there's no way in the world you can close Edwards Air Force 

27 Base. 

28 I've said for years, the lake bed isn't going to 



37 

1 go anywhere. The facilities aren't going to go anywhere. NASA 

2 Dryden is still in the north end of the lake bed, and you can 

3 take all the military out of there, and you'll still have a lake 

4 bed/ you'll still have a facility, but no more Edwards Air Force 

5 Base. 

6 That's what General Batten has already said. 

7 We've had him out there two or three times, and you ask him, 

8 "Are you going to close Edwards Air Force Base?" 

9 "No, no. We don't intend to close Edwards Air 

10 Force Base." 

11 But the reduction in personnel is going from some 

12 4800 to down to about 2800, and about 3,000 is a minimum for 

13 operating a base there to maintain the commissaries, the PXs, 

14 the MWRs, the housing, the recreational facilities, hospitals, 

15 all of the things necessary. It won't be able to support it. 

16 SENATOR HUGHES: Have you concluded your 

17 questions? Thank you. 

18 Now, let's hear from the proponents of 

19 Mr. Grissom. Anyone here to testify on his behalf? 

20 MR. MONAGAN: Madam Chair and Members of the 

21 Committee, I am Bob Monagan, Chairman of the California State 

22 World Trade Commission. 

23 I'm here to personally urge the confirmation of 

24 Mr. Grissom for this assignment. I'm sure I reflects all of the 

25 members of the World Trade Commission in making that 

26 recommendation to you. 

27 Senator Peace, in introducing Mr. Grissom, 

28 alluded to his very broad and great experience that he's had in 



38 

1 a great number of fields. I would only testify that I had the 

2 experience of working with Mr. Grissom for a long period of time 

3 on the economic development side of things, and more recently in 

4 the World Trade experience with him. 

5 He is a very unique individual, and I think we're 

6 very fortunate that one of our citizens would come forth and be 

7 willing to serve in this kind of assignment. He's had a vast 

8 amount of experience, a great deal of knowledge, direct working 

9 in all of these fields, and I think he brings not only that 

10 experience, but a certain kind of personality that's very good 

11 in dealing with these very complex issues, as the Senators have 

12 pointed out in some cases, and in the diplomatic world, where 

13 we're dealing with foreign countries and foreign businesses. 

14 So, I am just personally pleased to add my 

15 endorsement and urge a quick confirmation of Mr. Grissom. 

16 SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you very much. 

17 MR. SCHELL: Senator Hughes, Members of the 

18 Committee, my name is Wayne Schell. I'm the President and Chief 

19 Executive Officer of the California Association for Local 

20 Economic Development. We represent approximately 800-plus local 

21 economic developers across California. 

22 All of your districts have economic development 

23 organizations in the district: counties, cities, and private 

24 nonprofit organizations. These are sort of the arms and the 

25 legs in the field for the Trade and Commerce Agency. These are 
2 6 the people who implement many of the programs and activities. 

27 These are the folks on the street, working with the businesses 

28 on a daily basis. 



39 

1 I'm here today to tell you that we very much 

2 support Mr. Grissom's appointment in this position. He's been a 

3 part of the local economic development network for years. He's 

4 responsible for establishing a development corporation in San 

5 Diego that is still very engaged today in international trade 

6 and many other activities. 

7 By the way. Senator Hughes, we have just 

8 implemented a new venture program in rural California, in 

9 Northern California. And I'd be very happy to share that with 

10 you sometime. It's the first of its kind in the state for small 

11 communities. It's an experiment that we hope will have great 

12 success in the future. So, I'm here today to let you know that, 

13 as well as to obviously support my good friend, Lee Grissom, in 

14 his appointment. 

15 SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you very much. I look 

16 forward to receiving that information. 

17 Next witness, please. 

18 MS. KELLY: I'm Anne Kelly here today on behalf 

19 of Anheuser-Busch and its subsidiary. Sea World. The managers 

20 and workers at Sea World have had a long and very wonderful 

21 relationship with Mr. Grissom, and saw that area blossom, as you 

22 know, under his leadership during time he was there. 

23 The company basically believes that California 

24 would be well-served to have him lead the Trade and Commerce 

25 Agency. 

26 Thank you. 

27 SENATOR AYALA: Madam Chair, I notice that 

28 Mr. Grissom was selected as one of ten outstanding young men in 



40 

1 America. Then I notice it was 1978. 

2 [Laughter.] 

3 MR. GRISSOM: President Clinton was in the Class 

4 of 1979. 

5 SENATOR HUGHES: He's young at heart. 

6 Anyone opposed to the confirmation, please come 

7 forward. 

8 SENATOR AYALA: Move the confirmation. 

9 SENATOR HUGHES: We have a motion. Secretary 

10 call the roll. 

11 SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

12 SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

13 SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. 

14 SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

15 SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

16 SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 

17 SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

18 SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. 

19 SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Burton asked to be 

20 added/ and Senator Lewis already is. That's five to zero. 

21 SENATOR HUGHES: Unanimous confirmation, 

22 congratulations to you. 

23 MR. GRISSOM: Thank you very much. Senator. 

24 SENATOR HUGHES: Our next person is Conrad 

25 Hewitt, Commissioner of Financial Institutions, formerly the 

26 Superintendent of Banks. 

27 Do you have an opening statement? 

28 MR. HEWITT: Yes, I have few comments here I 



41 

would like to make. 

I am Conrad Hewitt, Commissioner, Department of 
Financial Institutions. And thank you for providing me the 
opportunity to appear here today before you. 

I was originally appointed in May of 1995 to be 
the State Superintendent of Banks, State of California. Then we 
created a new Department of Financial Institutions which became 
effective on July one of last year, 1997, when I assumed my new 
position. I was the last Superintendent of Banks, and now the 
first Commissioner of DFI. 

DFI supervises the licensees of the old State 
Banking Department, and now the California State chartered 
credit unions, industrial loan companies, and savings and loans, 
associations. 

I want to provide you with just a brief overview 
regarding DFI and a few continuing trends I see with our 
California financial institutions. 

As you may recall, DFI was created based on the 
core competencies concept, a notion that like businesses should 
be grouped together to provide greater efficiency and 
effectiveness. Thus, all of the depository financial 
institutions are now under one regulator instead of three 
regulators. 

I am pleased to report that the creation of DFI 
has been very successful. DFI, upon its initiation, saved 
one-and-a-third million dollars the first year, and another 
million dollars this current year. We are also able better to 
see the changes and trends in our financial industry here in 



42 

1 California. 

2 DFI supervises over five hundred financial 

3 institutions, totaling about $180 billion, which keeps us kind 

4 of busy. 

5 A few brief observations from my nearly three 

6 years in office. First of all, we tried to adopt a 

7 business-like philosophy. We manage DFI in a business-like 

8 manner, and by that I mean streamlining our operations and 

9 reducing our regulatory burden on licensees. We have worked to 

10 re-engineer our operations and to implement cost saving 

11 technologies. 

12 DFI is on track to be Year 2000 compliant by 

13 December, 1998, the end of this year. 

14 Concerning regulatory reform, DFI has amended a 

15 substantial number of its statutes and regulations to remove the 

16 unnecessary and costly provisions. At the same time, we are 

17 maintaining the safety and soundness of our licensees. This 

18 enabled our licensees spend more resources focusing on providing 

19 financial products to Calif ornians. 

20 On the Asia crisis, we have implemented 

21 appropriate steps to ensure the safety and soundness of these 

22 foreign banks and to monitor the effected licensees on a regular 

23 daily basis. I do expect a retrenchment of Asian banks from 

24 the United States, including our State of California. On the 

25 whole, the Asian economic crisis will probably not have much of 

26 an impact, economic impact at least, on California. 

27 The condition of our licensees, generally the 

28 institutions we supervise are financially sound. The most 



43 

• 

1 important supervisory issue facing DFI is the Year 2000 problem 

2 for our licensees. We are implementing the appropriate 

3 supervisory steps to ensure that our licensees will be Y-2K 

4 compliant. 

5 At the same time, we currently supervise 

6 approximately 102 what we call problem licensees. If there is a 

7 recession or an economic downturn, many of these licensees will 

8 require supervisory action and may need to be closed or merged. 

9 Lastly, what we call quality assurance surveys. 

10 Two years ago, we began oi;ir quality assurance program. After 

11 each examination, we sent a survey to the CEO to determine how 

12 well we performed. These surveys are returned to me 

13 anonymously. We have 13 questions, plus some additional 

14 information that we request, but the last question is a 

15 summation, and it goes like this: "Overall I was satisfied with 

16 the examination." We asked each CEO five different categories, 

17 do you strongly agree with that, do you agree, neither, or do 

18 you disagree, or strongly disagree. 

19 The first year we had a 98 favorable response, 

20 and I'm pleased to report that this past year, we had a 70 

21 percent strongly agree with that question, and 30 percent 

22 agreed. This is total 100 percent. I'm very proud of our 

23 people for this accomplishment. 

24 Some trends I see in our financial institutions 

25 here in California, the last time I appeared before you, I 

26 shared with you the principle trends that I saw then concerning 

27 California financial industries' future. These trends were 

28 basically increased competition, consolidation and mergers, and 



1 

2 

3 

A 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



44 

the need for the application of technology. These trends did 
occur the past three years, and they're still in process. Many 
financial institutions continue to automate their back shops and 
delivery systems in an effort to be more competitive and to 
provide greater convenience at a lower price to the customers 
and consumers. 

Last year, California had 30 bank mergers. 
Competition among financial service providers is increasing and 
is providing new choices to consumers. 

This concludes my brief statement regarding the 
department and some major trends. Thank you again for letting 
me appear before you here today. I will be pleased to answer 
your questions. 

SENATOR HUGHES: You talk about the consolidation 
of financial institutions and the fact that they will continue 
at a fast pace. Last year. Section 510 of the Financial Code 
required that the Department should consider the impact of a 
branch closure on public convenience, and prior regulations 
prohibited the closure of a state chartered bank branch if it 
impaired the public convenience. 

It appears that the amended regulation would 
permit a state chartered bank to close a branch even if doing so 
would demonstrably inconvenience the branch bank's customers. 

Is this true? 

MR. HEWITT: No, it's not true. Most of the 
branch closures that have occurred and probably will occur is 
where you have mergers and acquisitions, and there's a 
duplication of branches themselves. They have to notify us. 



45 

They have to notify the FDIC before any branch closure can be 
made . 

SENATOR HUGHES: Why did they change this in the 
code? I don't understand. 

MR. HEWITT: We still have the notification 
process to tell us why they closed the branch and where it's 
located. We have the option to prohibit that closure. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I seem to observe that unless a 
community made a protest, that these things went through. It's 
happened in several places in my district and in neighboring 
districts. 

I get really concerned about weakening the 
ability of constituents to be able to utilize the services of 
institutions that have historically been in their neighborhoods, 
but slowly but surely, some of them are creeping back in. 

So, what is holding up this process, and why was 
it done in the first place? 

MR. HEWITT: Many of these closure of branches 
are national banks which we do not supervise or regulate. These 
are the large bank mergers which have come together, and that's 
under the office of the Controller of the Currency and not my 
office. 

The other part to this is, we have more new banks 
being organized in the communities, especially the smaller 
communities, than we've ever had before. We normally had three 
or four; we probably had a dozen in the last year pending and 
approved new banks in this state. That's the highest number 
it's been in many, many years. 



46 

1 The closure of branches/ we've had a few 

2 complaints that we followed up on in communities where they felt 

3 that there was no financial system available to them. And — 

4 however, a bank would come back in and buy that branch/ and keep 

5 that branch going. 

6 We had more complaints from merchants than we did 

7 consumers on these closures. 

8 SENATOR HUGHES: Is your agency supporting 

9 Senator Johnson's 1669/ to remove the Department's regulation of 

10 specific business activities of banks and industrial loan 

11 companies that are currently requiring notice to or approval by 

12 your Department? 

13 . MR. HEWITT: Yes, I think that's our bill. That 

14 would still leave us the option of not permitting that to happen 

15 if the community felt that they needed it. 

16 SENATOR HUGHES: This doesn't sound like it's 

17 consumer friendly. Why aren't you more consumer friendly? 

18 MR. HEWITT: I think we're very consumer 

19 friendly. 

20 SENATOR HUGHES: You can't tell it by a 

21 regulation like that. That leaves a lot of doubt in people's 

22 minds. 

23 MR. HEWITT: We still listen to the consumer. 

24 SENATOR HUGHES: If they don't have a financial 

25 institution to deal with in their community because they've gone 

26 elsewhere/ you provide another hurdle that has to be jumped in 

27 the whole scheme of doing business. 

28 Is that not consumer unfriendly? 



47 

MR. HEWITT: No, we have investigated these, 
Senator, and found that there's always another financial 
institution available to the consumer. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Provided that they can get 
there. You know, some of these people get there by walking, not 
by driving. And some of the places are so inaccessible, 
certainly to people in inner city areas, I would imagine even to 
people in suburban and rural areas, it presents even worse of a 
hardship for them. 

MR. HEWITT: Well, I can tell you personally, my 
90-year-old mother drives her car 17 miles because there's not a 
branch in her town. She doesn't mind doing that. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aren't you concerned about that? 

MR. HEWITT: No, I asked her that question, and 
she said, no, I enjoy getting out and going to that branch to 
bank. 

She banks by mail, basically, electronic funds, 
and so her needs are very simple, and she doesn't have to go 
there every day like a merchant would. 

SENATOR HUGHES: That's interesting. 

Any further questions from Members? Senator 
Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Hewitt, SB 1669, mentioned by 
Senator Hughes, was that sponsored by your Department? 

MR. HEWITT: Yes, it is. 

SENATOR AYALA: Is it true that that is deleting 
the authority to order industrial loan companies to end 
deceptive advertising? 



48 

1 MR. HEWITT: To close what? 

2 SENATOR AYALA: To order industrial loan 

3 companies to end deceptive advertising. 

4 MR. HEWITT: That is the only place in the 

5 Financial Code law that it's that way. We can cover that 

6 through our excimination process if there is a complaint or 

7 deceptive/ and we do that on the banking side. That's the only 

8 place of any financial institution that has that particular type 

9 of deceptive advertising code, and we feel we can cover that. 

10 We have covered it through our examination or cease and desist 

11 orders. 

12 SENATOR AYALA: Do you have on-site ongoing 

13 oversight in these things? 

14 MR. HEWITT: Yes, we do. 

15 SENATOR AYALA: So that advertising ~ 

16 MR. HEWITT: And it comes right back from, the 

17 consumer. 

18 SENATOR AYALA: So, you feel that this is not 

19 necessary? 

20 MR. HEWITT: That's correct. We feel we have 

21 enough other enforcement authority to do it, and we have done 

22 it. 

23 SENATOR HUGHES: Where we are in the process is 

24 that I asked some questions. Senator Ayala asked some questions, 

25 and we have not heard from witnesses. 

26 CHAIRMAN BURTON: It seems like in speaking 

27 appearances to interest groups, you tell them they should be 

28 putting more money in the political process to obtain favorable 



49 

• 

1 results and things like that. Are you speaking for the 

2 Governor? 

3 MR. HEWITT: No, I'm not. 

4 CHAIRMAN BURTON: But you are a Governor's 

5 appointee. You're saying it, and I assume when you say that, 

6 they don't think you're telling them to give money to Gray 

7 Davis; right? 

8 MR. HEWITT: This was — that's a handout I use 

9 to help the financial institutions to become better financial 

10 institutions. 

11 CHAIRMAN BURTON: How do you become a better 

12 financial institution by making political contributions? 

13 MR. HEWITT: The regulated ones. When I came 

14 aboard, there were a lot of complaints about unregulated 

15 financial institutions like GE Capitol, and the mutual funds, 

16 and the insurance companies, and so forth, that do not have 

17 regulations in law. Some of them are not taxed, such as credit 

18 unions, and why can't we do that. I said, well, that's up to 

19 you. You have to get involved in the legislative process if you 

20 want to make that change; that's up to you. 

21 CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, in effect, it's you, as the 

22 person in charge, telling them that they have to contribute 

23 money to influence the outcome of legislation. That's what it 

24 looks like here. "Need to put more time, personnel and money 

25 into the political process. Financial institutions need 

26 favorable legislation." 

27 MR. HEWITT: If they want to have their own 

28 legislation, I think that's what it takes to do it. 



50 

1 CHAIRMAN BURTON: They can't get legislation — I 

2 mean, in other words, we're all familiar with the process, I 

3 just think it's kind of unseemly. 

4 MR. HEWITT: Well, when I got the complaints from 

5 them to do it, I said, well, I think your answer to that is to 

6 go out and do it yourself, quite frankly. 

7 CHAIRMAN BURTON: I just think it's kind of — 

8 MR. HEWITT: It's just a handout. I hand it to 

9 them and say, here are some things — 

10 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yes, it's a handout telling 

11 them that if you give money, you'll get favorable political 

12 legislation. 

13 MR. HEWITT: No, it's not just money. It's their 

14 time. 

15 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Time, personnel, and money. 

16 MR. HEWITT: If they want to do it. 

17 CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's rather unseemly. It's 

18 unseemly. I mean, these days you hope it's only unseemly. 

19 Where are you on the so-called credit union 

20 issue? Or do you have a position on it? 

21 MR. HEWITT: No, we don't take a position on it 

22 because we have banks and credit unions and so forth. 

23 CHAIRMAN BURTON: What do you think is the 

24 equitable, fair thing? 

25 MR. HEWITT: I don't know. It's been going on 

26 for many, many years in its current situation of — there is a 

27 need for credit unions, especially in the smaller rural 

28 communities where banks generally will not go into. Some credit 



51 

unions are very large. 

I think Congress will probably have to decide 
what the issue there is, whether there should be a common bond 
membership, whether there should be taxation to credit unions. 

I don't have any position on them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any thoughts on it? 

MR. HEWITT: No. I think the system has gone on 
well as it has in the past. I'd say leave it alone. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But it ain't left alone because 
now the Supreme Court's spoken, so it won't be as it was in the 
past. 

MR. HEWITT: That's true at the federally 
chartered credit unions. The state chartered credit unions, 
they do have — most states can issue so-called multiple common 
bonds memberships under their laws. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Members of the Committee? Did 
you get into bank closures? 

SENATOR HUGHES: Yes, sir. My first question. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Were you pleased with the 
answer? 

SENATOR HUGHES: No, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What is your position on 
Senator Johnson's 1669? 

SENATOR HUGHES: They support it. That's their 
legislation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's your bill. 

MR. HEWITT: Correct. We believe that we have 
the enforcement power to stop any closure that needs to be 



52 

stopped. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's just like notice. 

MR. HEWITT: It's a notice, but we have the power 
and enforcement power to stop it, even though it's a notice. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It ends the notice requirement. 

MR. HEWITT: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why would you want to do that? 

MR. HEWITT: Because we want to know — we have 
to know if we ever close that bank or that financial 
institution, does that branch still exist and so forth. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Maybe I'm mistaken, or someone 
else is mistaken, but it says that the measure would end the 
Department's authority over various specific business activities 
of banks and industrial loan companies, including requirements 
for notice of closure. 

MR. HEWITT: No, we still have — we have to have 
— there's something wrong there. We still have to have the 
requirement on the notice of closure. I'll double-check that 
for sure. We want it, and we need it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why would you want to delete 
the authority to stop loan companies from ending deceptive 
advertising? 

MR. HEWITT: That was a question that was asked 
before, because all the other financial institutions do not have 
that particular law, and we still have the enforcement power 
from the consumer complaint side to do that and we can stop it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Then why don't we extend it to 
the other institutions instead of taking it away from the one 



53 

1 that's got them? Why would you not want to be able to stop 

2 people from lying about their product? 

3 MR. HEWITT: We have not had that situation with 

4 the other financial institutions. 

5 CHAIRMAN BURTON: How do you know? 

6 MR. HEWITT: We have a complaint system. 

7 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Nobody's ever complained about 

8 bogus advertising? 

9 MR. HEWITT: No, they have not. There are 

10 complaints about opening their accounts, having holds on their 

11 checks and those types, but not against the — not on the 

12 deceptive advertising. We have not had that complaint. 

13 •* CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why would the bill reduce the 

14 scope of existing requirements? That's been asked, too. 

15 Has all the stuff been asked about the industrial 

16 loan business? 

17 SENATOR HUGHES: No. 

18 CHAIRMAN BURTON: In other words, schedule charge 

19 at the office provides statements in terms of borrowers for 

20 loans under ten thousand; this bill would limit the requirement 

21 to loans under five thousand. 

22 If it's important to somebody at five grand, why 

23 is it not important at ten? 

24 MR. HEWITT: We'll probably just leave it at ten 

25 thousand. 

26 CHAIRMAN BURTON: You put the bill in at five. 

27 You sluff this stuff off like it's a nothing. 

28 MR. HEWITT: No, it's not a nothing, but we feel 



54 

1 that maybe it should be ten after we've heard some complaints 

2 about it. 

3 CHAIRMAN BURTON: But it tells me what your mind 

4 set is, 1 guesS/ or not. 

5 How about the fact that the industrial loan 

6 companies submit request and plans before getting into the home 

7 equity business? You don't think they ought to have to do that? 

8 MR. HEWITT: That would be the only financial 

9 institution that would have that. It would be a dis — 

10 CHAIRMAN BURTON: What were industrial loan 

11 companies set up to do? 

12 MR. HEWITT: They were set up to perform the same 

13 functions as a bank — 

14 CHAIRMAN BURTON: For industrial loans. 

15 MR. HEWITT: Basically, and that's what they're 

16 doing today. 

17 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Industrial loans, that's why 

18 they call them industrial loan companies. 

19 MR. HEWITT: They're providing a lot of consumer 

20 loans today. They have changed, and they're providing a lot of 

21 car loans, used cars and new car loans. 

22 The name industrial loan really doesn't pertain 

23 to them as much as it was at the time many years ago this was 

24 written. 

25 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Questions, Members of the 

26 Committee. 

27 Witnesses in support, anybody here from the 

28 industrial loan companies? 



55 

MR. LEVY: Ed Levy, representing the Western 
League of Savings Institutions, which is the savings and loan 
industry. 

While there are only few state chartered savings 
and loans remaining in California, we found working with Con 
Hewitt over the last couple of years since the DFI was created 
and he became the regulator, and during the process when that 
consolidation bill was going through, to be a man that we've 
really found very, very good to work with. He's very 
knowledgeable of not only our industry but the competing 
industries and solicitous of our opinions on the issues that 
come before him. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: He solicits your opinion? 

MR. LEVY: Solicitous of our opinions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: He solicits opinions from you 
on how he should deal with you? I'd like him, too. 

MR. LEVY: Well, we give him opinions on things 
that he doesn't ask us about. I mean, there are issues that 
come up, and they need discussion and resolution. 

But we've found him to be an extremely 
knowledgeable gentleman, and one we've been very pleased to work 
with. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

Next, please. 

MR. NOACK: Thank you. I'm Russell Noack, on 
behalf of the California Association of Thrift and Loan 
Companies, also known as industrial loan companies. 

I'm very happy to answer any questions that you 



56 

may have. 

I think, again, it's the Department's bill. As 
Mr. Levy indicated, the Department of Financial Institutions has 
gone a long way to try and maintain a competitive marketplace. 
And industrial loan companies number approximately 25 of an 
asset base of around five to six billion dollars. We're 
approximately three to four percent of the entire financial 
institution environment in California, but a very important 
part. One that serves areas not often served. Some noteworthy 
ones in the Bay Area, First Republic; in Southern California, 
the largest financial institution in East L.A. is Community, and 
that's a very vibrant and important aspect. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You took over the thrifts? 

MR. NOACK: Yeah. No, the thrift and loan 
companies, the law is called Industrial Loan Law. They've 
always been known as thrift and loan companies. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They would be the old ten 
percenters? 

MR. NOACK: Yeah, back in the — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Used to do pretty good without 
any regulation, as I recall. 

MR. NOACK: Back, back prior to becoming FDIC and 
all of the other panoply of financial institutions. We're 
federally regulated, just like our friends from the banks. 

The basic differences. Senator, is that 
industrial loan companies don't have demand accounts, don't 
offer checking accounts. 

The Industrial Loan Law, that, interestingly. 



57 

came from 1917, and it came from industrial worker. This was 
the industry that really — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The IWW? 

MR. NOACK: Well, not so much. We had that 
conversation once in Judiciary Committee a few years ago. But 
more the blue-collar workers who really, at that time, if they 
are unable to get anything from a bank or an S&L, the industrial 
loan company was the sort of institution of choice. 

And with respect to many of the provisions that 
are in the Senator Johnson bill, and I'm not going to speak for 
the sponsor, but we are negotiating. We, on behalf of the 
industry, have a number of issues which we are negotiating at 
present with the Department and with various consumer groups as 
the consumer groups negotiate with the Department. 

Many of those — all of those provisions that you 
mentioned, in our view, are covered, are redundant, are covered 
under both federal and state law, unfair business practices, et 
cetera. And, quite honestly, they can remain in the law or be 
taken out. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: With respect, you people come 
up with a bill, any industry, and they want a bill to do 
something, that doesn't bother me. That's what you do. 

When the watchdogs do it, it offends me. 

I mean, as far as I'm concerned, anybody can try 
to push the envelope as far as they can. It's kind of the 
watchdog's thing, you know, not to let that happen. That's just 
my concern. 

MR. NOACK: Senator, with all due respect, the 



58 

provisions that the Department has looked at, one of the values 
of what all of you did in consolidating basically the four 
depository financial institutions under one regulator is, you 
gave the regulator the ability to look at all four laws and note 
inconsistencies and try and modernize and simplify the system. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But see, we view it from a 
different point of view. I would look at it from trying to — 
and this is painting with a broad brush — if you see one with, 
quote, "weak" regulation and one with strong, I would try to get 
the weak ones up to the strong, not the strong ones back with 
the weak. If I was in the business, I'd probably be looking at 
it the other way. 

MR. HEWITT: And that's a good point, 
Mr. Chairman, because on the industrial loan side, we really had 
no enforcement powers . And we are adding enforcement powers in 
this bill. 

We're taking the best practices of both — 
enabling the institutions to remain competitive, but those 
institutions who are not regulated, and they have a lot of 
competition if it's not regulated. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Next witness in support. 

SENATOR AYALA: I was going to inquire, the more 
I think and hear about SB 1669, I don't know why you really need 
it. Is it going to enforce your regulatory powers, delete some 
of the — 

MR. HEWITT: It's going to delete some of the 
redundant, but it's going to give us a lot more enforcement 
power that we presently don't have and we need. 



59 

• 

MR. NOACK: Senator, on behalf of the industry, 
the industry views the bill as certainly modernizing and 
simplifying. Those are wonderful words. 

But we also view it as much stronger and more 
effective and efficient regulatory control over the industry. 

We do not in any way view it as watering down 
the law in any respect. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't know what it does. It 
affects a whole page of code sections. 

MR. NOACK: One hundred fifty-five pages. 

SENATOR AYALA: A few minutes ago, Senator Hughes 
indicated that this wasn't consumer friendly. 

MR. NOACK: Again, I respectfully disagree with 
the Senator. 

We view the efforts of the Department with the 
notion of the bill. I believe that the bill is intended to be 
extremely consumer friendly. 

I appreciate it, because I've been in contact 
with some of the groups that have raised some concerns, and 
there are some needs to do substantial amendments in the bill 
that I think the sponsor recognizes, and certainly it's been 
brought to our attention. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't want to beat a dead 
horse, but I would think that if you're the head of a 
department, you'd figure that out before you went in. 

Next witness in support. 

MR. NOACK: Thank you. 

MR. WILHELM: Mr. Chairman, Members, Greg 



60 

1 Wilhelm/ California Bankers Association. 

2 It's a privilege to be here to urge your 

3 confirmation of Con Hewitt as Commissioner of Financial 

4 Institutions. 

5 Our Executive Director has already written the 

6 Committee at the urging of our board for the same purpose. 

7 I would just like to emphasize that our 

8 experience under the new Department of Financial Institutions is 

9 very similar to the experience we had when we reported to the 

10 State Banking Department. The treatment of our state chartered 

11 banks, all 212 of them as of last count, is that they get 

12 extremely fair, firm, thorough treatment. The Department's very 

13 responsive. 

14 I think most importantly, the Department's very 

15 efficient. If you talk to the state chartered banks, and they 

16 all talk to their national bank colleagues, the quality of 

17 regulation they get for their dollar relative to what the 

18 national banks get charged by the OCC is considered to be a 

19 regulatory bargain. They get a lot of individualized treatment 

20 without an awful lot of the bureaucracy. 

21 Indeed, most of the deregulation modernization 

22 that's going on in the codes that affect commercial banks over 

23 the last couple of years at the urging of Department has really 

24 been to eliminate the forms and focus on the substance. I 

25 think it's been very successful. 

26 I'll just make one last comment, because I know 

27 Senator Hughes and others of you who are interested in the 

28 branch closing issue, there's an aspect to this that is not 



61 

• 

present in 1669 that you should be aware of. 

The whole examination of commercial banks, S&Ls, 
and industrial loan companies under the Federal Community 
Reinvestment Act requires a very thorough analysis of the impact 
on the community, what the bank doing to ameliorate that 
impact, or to provide substitute services. And failure to 
address that could have fairly severe consequences for 
commercial banks. 

So, there is a regulatory process in place to 
make sure that branch closings are not treated lightly. 

Thank you . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'll tell you what we'll do 
because we have a short committee. 

Any opposition here? 

Is that we will put the matter over until we get 
a full committee. So, thank you, sir. 

MR. HEWITT: Thank you. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee hearing was 

terminated at approximately 3:21 P.M.] 
— ooOoo-- 



62 

CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

1, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
day of /^CUucJ^ 1998. 





r:LYN /. mi; 
brthand R^ort( 



349-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.75 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 349-R when ordering. 



^HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



n-POSiTORY ITEM 
..'•FNTS DEPT 

APK 241998 

■RANG I SCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

MONDAY, MARCH 30, 1998 
1:31 P.M. 



350-R 



1 SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

2 , STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

3 
4 
5 
6 
7 HEARING 

8 
9 

10 STATE CAPITOL 

11 ROOM 113 

12 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 
13 
14 
15 

16 MONDAY, MARCH 30, 1998 

17 1:31 P.M. 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 

25 Reported by 

26 

27 Evelyn J. Mizak 

Shorthand Reporter 

28 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR JOHN BURTON, Chair 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS, Vice Chair 

SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 

SENATOR TERESA HUGHES 

SENATOR WILLIAM KNIGHT 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

WADE TEASDALE, Consultant to SENATOR LEWIS 

FELICE TANENBAUM, Consultant to SENATOR HUGHES 

JOSH LOWERY, Consultant to SENATOR KNIGHT 

ALSO PRESENT 

DONALD A. JACKSON, Member 

Public Employment Relations Board 

SENATOR KEN MADDY 



Ill 

INDEX 

Page 

Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees; 

DONALD A. JACKSON, Member 

Public Employment Relations Board 1 

Introduction and Support by 

SENATOR KEN MADDY 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Motion to Confirm 2 

Committee Action 3 

Termination of Proceedings 3 

Certificate of Reporter 4 



P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— ooOoo — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight and Burton are 
present. Senator Maddy is here to present. 

SENATOR MADDY: Mr. Chairman at Members, Don 
Jackson, who's a long, long time personal friend and former 
colleague of mine in the law business. 

The main thing I want to point out is that Don is 
not a stranger to the Senate. Some years ago, when Mr. Lockyer 
took over, I was leader at that point in time and had Don 
appointed to a special committee that worked with the Senate in 
terms of looking at salary comparisons and a number of other 
things, and has been performing some service to the Senate. 

He is now, as a result of some minor medical 
difficulties, could not continue the active law practice and is 
working on a state appointment, and is doing an excellent job, I 
understand, from everybody that I've talked to. 

So, I would strongly urge his confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Mr. Jackson. 

MR. JACKSON: Senator, thank you for having me 
here today. 

Just a very brief statement. I have been with 
the PERB Board for about eight months. My previous background 
was in the practice of law, private practice for 35 years. Most 
of that practice was centered around a specialization in tax 
law. That specialization led me to doing bond work for school 
districts, and that practice led me to doing general work for 
school districts, which gave me some familiarity with the public 



sector and labor practices. 

I have enjoyed the past eight months, I feel 
that it's been an interesting experience for me because most of 
the other members have come from the public sector, but I find 
that everyone seems to take these matters very seriously and 
judiciously/ and we take what I think is a very reasonable 
approach, and studied approach, in reaching a decision. 

So, I hope that you will give me consideration 
and confirm me. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Does the name P. J. Camarotta 
mean anything to you? 

MR. JACKSON: Yes, it does. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's good enough for me. 

MR. JACKSON: But I would point out that he was 
another one of those elected local officials that never quite 
made it to the state level. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We know one, but he was "No!" 

SENATOR MADDY: The iron fist. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And he had the iron head to go 



with it. 



Ayala? 



the roll. 



Any questions. Members of the Committee? Senator 

SENATOR AYALA: No questions. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Move. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Moved by Senator Knight. Call 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 
SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. Senator Knight 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Lewis. 
Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. The roll will be left 



open. 



SENATOR MADDY: Thank you. 
MR. JACKSON: Thank you very much. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Lewis is Aye. 
[Thereafter, SENATOR HUGHES 
added her Aye vote, making the 
final vote 5-0 for confirmation.] 
[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 1:35 P.M.] 
— ooOoo — 



CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

^ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
-SD' day of ^y^^Z'ueA^ , 1998. 




ILYK J.^fTZAK 
Shorthand Reporter 



350-R 

Additional copies of this publication nriay be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1 020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 350-R when ordering. 



DEPOSITORY ITEM 
DO ;.5..i;\^'FNTS DEPT. 

APR 24 1998 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



^HEARING 

SENATE^RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1998 
1:36 P.M. 



351-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1998 
1:36 P.M. 



Reported by 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR JOHN BURTON, Chair 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS, Vice Chair 

SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 

SENATOR TERESA HUGHES 

SENATOR WILLIAM KNIGHT 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

WADE TEASDALE, Consultant to SENATOR LEWIS 

FELICE TANENBAUM, Consultant to SENATOR HUGHES 

JOSH LOWERY, Consultant to SENATOR KNIGHT 

ALSO PRESENT 

PHILLIP J. FORHAN, Member 
Board of Governors 
California Community Colleges 

SENATOR JIM COSTA 

MARK J. DE SAULNIER, Member 
State Air Resources Board 



Ill 

INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees: 

PHILLIP J. FORHAN, Member 

Board of Governors 

California Community Colleges 1 

Introduction and Support by 

SENATOR JIM COSTA 1 

Background and Experience 3 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

How Community Colleges Can Adjust 

to Meet Requirements of Federal Law 

under Welf orm Reform 4 

Relay Legislature's Expectation to 

Board and Administration on Making 

Welfare Reform Work and Make Recommendations 

to Legislature if Changes are Needed 5 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Student Fees 5 

Exorbitant Parking Fees 6 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Board's Ability to Enact Policy to 

Discourage Local Districts from 

Requiring High Parking Fees 7 

Motion to Confirm 8 

Committee Action 9 

MARK J. DE SAULNIER, Member 

California Air Resources Board 9 

Background and Experience 9 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Viewpoint on MTBE Controversy 11 



IV 



Disproportionate Effects of Pollution 
and Environmental Hazards on Low-Income 
Communities 12 

Motion to Confirm 13 

Committee Action 14 

Termination of Proceedings 14 

Certificate of Reporter 15 



i 



P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— ooOoo — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Costa, why don't you 
start with your introduction of your constituent. This is 
Governor's appointee Phillip J. Forhan, member of the Board of 
Governors/ Community Colleges. 

SENATOR COSTA: Correct, Mr. Chairman and Members 
of the Senate Rules Committee. 

I have the distinct honor this afternoon of 
presenting to the Members of Senate Rules Committee Mr. Forhan 
who is up for confirmation for the Governor's appointment to the 
Board of Governors to the State Community Colleges. 

I've known Mr. Forhan for many years. He has 
himself worked very hard on behalf of the people in the greater 
Central Valley in a number of various endeavors, but since 1991, 
Mr. Forhan has served as an elected member on the State 
Community College Board. 

State Center is one of the larger community 
colleges in California, with a very large enrollment, with two 
primary campuses, and two extended campuses now in other parts 
of the four-county area that it serves. And they have done, I 
think, a very good job in attempting to address the challenges 
and changes that have occurred in community colleges in this 
decade. 

He was in the last year appointed by the Governor 
to the Board for state Community Colleges. I think it's an 
appropriate appointment given his background and experience as a 
member of the State Center, and would very much encourage each 



and every one of you to listen closely to his comments, his 
testimony. I think he will make a good appointment, not only to 
the State Board, but also giving a representative perspective of 
the community colleges in the greater Central Valley. 

We have many community colleges. They vary in 
sizes from West Hills Community College and Taft Community 
College that are smaller and serve broad rural areas, and then 
the larger community colleges like Bakersfield College and State 
Center represent urban areas. So, we have, I think, a very 
diverse mixture of community colleges in the Valley, just like 
the state, and I think he'll do a good job. 

I urge your confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you very much. Senator. 

MR. FORHAN: Thank you Senator Burton and Members 
of the Committee. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Did you ever work with Chuck 
Dickson? 

MR. FORHAN: No. Is that good or bad? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I thought he was working Fresno 
about the time you were in the City Manager's Office, then he 
was up here as Director of Finance for a while under Reagon. 

MR. FORHAN: That's going back a ways. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's all right. Neither good 
nor bad. Just letting you know I've got a deep history in the 
Valley. 

MR. FORHAN: You certainly do. That's great. 

SENATOR COSTA: Conversations that the Chairman 
and I have on occasion. We're both history buffs. 



i 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: He might have been with the 
county then. 

Go ahead. 

MR. FORHAN: It's a pleasure to be here. It's a 
great honor to serve on the Board of Governors for the State of 
California. 

As you know, the California community colleges 
have been a leader in the nation in terms of providing education 
for the folks who need it the most. 

In terms of size, we represent — 26 percent of 
all community colleges students attend the California community 
college system. I think that we have done a tremendous service 
for the community, not only — as you know, our mission is not 
only academic, but it's transfer, vocational training, and also 
with welfare reform, now we certainly have — our plate is full, 
but the opportunity is there to really serve the students and to 
make a difference in California. 

One of the things that I have learned, it's a 
cliche but very true, that the community colleges can change 
peoples' lives. I think when we look at what we're doing in 
terms of transfer rates at both the UC system and the CSU, we're 
doing a fine job and it's improving. But given the limited 
constraints that we have, I think that we're doing as best that 
we can. Funding, of course, is critical to our system, but I 
think cost effectiveness to the taxpayers, that we're doing a 
good job in providing that service for a broad spectrum of the 
community. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I have a couple questions, sir. 



I 



and you may or may not be prepared to answer them. 

Under the new federal welfare reform, the amount 
of time for people being in voc. training courses, they're 
limited to twelve months, but most of the certified community 
college voc. ed. programs are two years. 

Do you have any idea on how the community 
colleges can adjust to meet the requirements of the federal law 
for the needs of welfare recipients? 

It tells you how intelligent Congress was when 
they did this. They didn't figure out what it took to really 
get a certified voc. ed. degree. 

MR. FORHAN: I mentioned a moment ago that 26 
percent of all community college students are in California. 
Unfortunately, I don't think Washington recognizes that. We 
have been slighted in more than simply welfare reform in terms 
of what our needs are. 

For example, the Hope Scholarship simply misses 
the cost effectiveness that would provide for our students that 
are not benefitting. 

Back to the question in terms of welfare reform, 
it's necessary for us to change some of our programs. For 
example, at State Center, we have open enrollment. Like, every 
Monday you can go for vocational training jobs, for open 
entrance into the program. And if you continue through that 
program, you will have a job at the end of the program. 

Those are the kinds of things, the flexibility 
and innovation that we need to provide for all the system, that 
some of the constraints and mentalities that existed in the past 



won't allow us to continue because of the mandate of the federal 
requirements . 

For example, at State Center now, almost 20 
percent of our student body's on public assistance. I think, 
again, the impact that's going to have on our jurisdiction is 
going to be dramatic. And it may be important that we go back 
and revisit that issue, that federal legislation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I think also a great either 
burden or opportunity, or both, will be placed on the community 
college system as the place where most of the job training is 
going to be taking place. And whether it should have really 
been all laid on you or not is another question. 

But I think it would be very important for you to 
relay not only to the Board but to the administrators that we 
really expect them, one, to figure out how to make this work 
under the existing rules. And two, whatever recommendations 
they may have, that they either come to us or go to the feds to 
try to get a change. 

Any other questions, Members of the Committee. 

SENATOR AYALA: I've always been concerned with 
student fees. I understand they haven't been raised in the last 
two or three years; is that correct? 

MR. FORHAN: They haven't been raised. In fact, 
just this year they're down from 13 to 12, so it's a reduction. 
We are benefitting from the Governor's — 

SENATOR AYALA: It went from 14 to 12? 

MR. FORHAN: Thirteen to twelve. That doesn't 
seem like a lot of money, but when you add it up for some folks 



6 

that don't have a lot of money to begin with, it makes a 
difference. Everything we can do to facilitate the open 
enrollment/ to get that access to the students, we need to do, 
and that dollar makes a difference. 

I'd like to see it lower. In '84 was the first 
time they created the actual tuition for the community colleges, 
and I think that was unfortunate but a necessity at the time. 

SENATOR AYALA: I have a number of community 
colleges in my district. I get a number of letters regarding 
parking for their cars. At Mt. SAC, for instance, they charge 
you parking even though you go to school on a bike. You've got 
to pay those fees. 

Do you folks have any control over that at all? 

Over at Sacramento Community College over here, 
they used to park at random. Now they have meters. So, 
students have a problem, you know, meeting those financial 
demands s ome t ime s . 

They're trying to make it so that everybody can 
participate, especially at the community college level, as 
opposed to a four-year college, so why do we have these hurdles 
thrown in front of the students? 

MR. FORHAN: Senator, part of the strength of the 
community college is the local jurisdictions. And the state 
requires that we separate that parking money to be used only for 
parking. But in terms of actually putting a fee on bicycles, 
that would be a local decision. 

I think that would be unfortunate, because I 
totally agree that there are — 



SENATOR AYALA: All local control. 

MR. FORHAN: Absolutely. Yes, it's sort of a 
federation that gets it strength both at the state level and 
also the strength of locally elected, local jurisdiction. 

SENATOR AYALA: Isn't it strange for someone to 
charge you for something you have no use for? I know a number 
of people go to school on their bicycles, but when they are 
admitted to a junior college, they are charged a fee along with 
the student body ticket. They pay for something they never use. 

That's not under your jurisdiction, I understand. 

MR. FORHAN: Right. But our district, in fact, 
being a local district, we encourage the bicycles, and there 
certainly is no fee. And we've gone out and provided that there 
is attachments for the buses, so the kids can come on the bus 
and ride their bikes and have a place to park. So, that's a 
local decision. 

SENATOR AYALA: I don't have any more questions, 
Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Could not the Board at least 
send out, I guess you couldn't have a binding policy, but some 
kind of policy just encouraging them or discouraging them from 
the type of situation Senator Ayala was talking about? 

MR. FORHAN: You try to recognize the integrity 
of the local district. But something — I mean, if other 
districts were doing that, that's a pattern, may be using the 
money for something else, because parking is very expensive. 
Simply a parking stall in a structure is over ten thousand 
dollars. That's a lot of money for the district to generate. 



I 



8 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But they're generating it from 
people who don't use it. 

MR. FORHAN: Right. To me, that seems 
inappropriate . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Maybe O'Connell's committee 
could look at that, Senator Ayala. 

But, you know, we try to limit fees, but then if 
they can back-door them in on something else, you reduce, you 
know, one dollar a unit, so for ten units, they save ten bucks, 
and it's picked up on the other side, charging them for 
something they don't use. It gets back in. I know that's not 
your thing. 

Senator Knight, any questions? 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No questions, Mr. Chairman. 
Move. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any opposition? Moved by 
Senator Knight. Call the roll, and we'll leave the roll open. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Roll will be held open. Thank 
you and congratulations. 



SENATOR COSTA: Thank you very much, Members of 
the Committee. 

[Thereafter, SENATOR LEWIS and 
SENATOR HUGHES added their Aye 
votes, making the final vote 5-0 
for confirmation.] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Next is Mark De Saulnier, State 
Air Resources Board. 

MR. DE SAULNIER: Good afternoon. Welcome back. 
I have a few comments while you get organized or more 
organized. 

My name is Mark De Saulnier, for the record. I'm 
a member of the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors, and I have 
been nominated for appointment to the Air Resources Board to be 
the representative from the Bay Area Air Quality District. 

I will confess to you that I am not a native 
Calif ornian. I was born and raised in Massachusetts. I was the 
son of a State Senator there. I came west to visit, and I ended 
up staying. 

I've been a small business owner. I've owned 
restaurants. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You own the Santa Fe? 

MR. DE SAULNIER: I did in the early '80s, Mr. 
Chairman, with Jeremiah Tower and Doyle Moon, from 1980 to '83. 
That restaurant was in Berkeley. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I know where it was. I ate 
there. 

MR. DE SAULNIER: Did you enjoy it? 



10 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It was all right. Once we 
finally got seated it was all right. 

MR. DE SAULNIER: It must have been after I left, 
Senator. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You were doing a land office 
business then. 

MR. DE SAULNIER: Yes, we were. 

In addition to the Santa Fe, I've owned a 
restaurant called TR's Bar and Grill in Concord for just about 
20 years. It's named after Teddy Roosevelt who is a political 
hero of mine. 

In that role, I became involved in local civic 
matters. I served on the City of Concord's Planning Commission. 
Was elected to its City Council. Served as its Mayor, and then 
was appointed by the Governor to serve out a vacancy on the 
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. I was elected to my 
own term in 1994. I'm currently up for office, and I'm running 
unopposed, which is a nice thing. 

In that role, some of you may know that Contra 
Costa County has four of the five oil refineries in Northern 
California, so we interact with the oil industry a great deal. 
I deal quite frequently with labor organizations, environmental 
organizations, and management at all four of those refineries, 
trying to ensure that the refineries act responsibly to my 
constituents outside the fence line, and to interact with both 
environmental groups and other stakeholders who have a vested 
interest in what happens inside the fence lines. 

Also, I am the County Board's representative not 



I 



11 

just to the Air Quality District, but also the Metropolitan 
Transportation Commission, and the Association of Bay Area 
Governments Executive Board. In that role, I have started 
something called the Inter-regional Partnership, which is a 
partnership between Contra Costa County, Alameda County, Santa 
Clara County, San Joaquin and Stanislaus County to look at areas 
of mutual interest in regards to quality of life issues, and 
obviously in particular, air quality. 

So, in those ways, I think that I've been able to 
contribute both to my local county, to the region, and I'm now 
seeking to contribute at the state level. 

In the past five months, six months that I've 
been to the Air Resources Board, it's been largely a learning 
period for me, but very rewarding so far. And as the year 
starts to heat up, so to speak, we have many more challenging 
issues on our agenda between now and the end of the year. 

With that, I'll entertain any questions you may 
have of me. Senator Burton or Committee Members. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What is your viewpoint on the 
MTBE controversy that, at least as I recall hearing about it, 
came out of some reservoirs or lakes over in Contra Costa 
County? Wasn't that either the water district or East Bay MUD? 

MR. DE SAULNIER: I believe it was Contra Costa 
Water District had some concerns at Contra Loma. 

MTBE, as you know. Senator Mount joy authored a 
bill that was signed by the Governor last year. It requires UC 
to do a full study that will come back to the Air Resources 
Board and to the Legislature to look at the results of that 



12 

study to deem if there are — what the true risks are for MTBE, 
and also look into if there are other potential additives that 
we can use in California's reformulated fuel. 

It's been presented that it's somewhat of a 
trade-off between air quality and water quality, but I think 
during next year, we will look at how we can not just evaluate 
that trade-off, but how best we can have an additive that the 
federal government requires us to have that will continue to 
improve our air quality. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There have been concerns over, 
at least in San Francisco and I know parts of Contra Costa, 
about the disproportionate effect of pollution and environmental 
hazards on basically low-income communities. 

Has ARE been looking into that situation to see 
whether or not there's validity to those questions? And if so, 
what type of things could they be doing? 

MR. DE SAULNIER: Prior to my being on the Board, 
as I think some of you know, there was a lawsuit brought by the 
NAACP, I believe, and CBE against the South Coast District. 

ARB has paid for five additional monitoring 
sites. There are ten additional monitoring sites, the South 
Coast paying for the other five, I believe, to look at just that 
issue, whether low-income communities are impacted by that. 

And as the Chairman knows. Contra Costa County 
has been impacted by our industrial belt. We had — just two 
months ago, I was at a ground-breaking for a public health 
center in north Richmond that was paid for as a result of the 
General Chemical release about a decade ago. So, we certainly. 



13 

as you say, in the Bay Area and particularly in Contra Costa are 
familiar with the effects of industrial facilities in low income 
communities. 

But having said that, I think CARB's ultimate 
role is to provide for a clean environment and the highest 
quality air for all Calif ornians. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Ayala, any questions? 

SENATOR AYALA: I have no questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any opposition in the 



audience? 



back. 



Okay, we will wait for Senator Knight to come 



MR. DE SAULNIER: Okay, I will be here. Thank 



you, 



[Thereupon the Committee 

acted upon legislative 

agenda items.] 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Okay, the first order of 
business is Mark De Saulnier, State Air Resources Board. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Move. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Moved by Knight; call the roll. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 
SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 



SECRETARY WEBB 
SECRETARY WEBB 
SENATOR KNIGHT 
SECRETARY WEBB 
SECRETARY WEBB 



Ayala Aye. 
Senator Knight. 
Aye. 

Knight Aye. 
Senator Burton. 



14 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

The roll will remain open. 

[Thereafter, SENATOR LEWIS and 
SENATOR HUGHES added their Aye 
voteS/ making the final vote 5-0 
for confirmation.] 

[Thereupon this portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee hearing was 

terminated at approximately 1:58 P.M.] 
— ooOoo — 



15 



CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 



I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 



day of 



L 




, 1998. 




JVELYN j"rpIZAK 
"Shorthand Reporrer 




351-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1 020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 351-R when ordering. 



^